- (1.) Heard Sri Irshad Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Riyaz Akhtar who has appeared for the respondent No.4 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
(2.) The challenge in the present writ petition has been laid to an order dated 12 December 2006 passed by the third respondent - District Inspector of Schools holding that the appointment of the petitioner in the institution in question was illegal. The order passed by the third respondent proceeds to hold that the promotion of Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey was liable to be countenanced from 15 August 2004 and since prior thereto no vacancy came into existence, the appointment of the petitioner was clearly illegal.
(3.) During the pendency of the present writ petition, this Court by an order passed on 6 May 2009 provided that the employer would continue to pay the current monthly salary of the petitioner. This interim order is stated to have continued till the petitioner retired from service on 30 June 2015.;