A.Banerji, J. - (1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying that suitable order or direction be issued to the opposite parties to give effect to rights accrued to the petitioner under U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Orders and to consider petitioner as probationer on post of teacher of C. T. grade in the said College.
(2.) Petitioners case briefly put is that he had been selected for appointment in the College in the vacancy caused by the termination of the services of Shri Shadi Lal Dwivedi. The petitioner was appointed on 1-11-1975 and continued to serve the institution but it appears that Shri Shadi Lal Dwivedi filed Suit No. 467 of 1975 for declaration that the order of termination of his services dated 19-8-1975 passed by the Authorised Controller was illegal and void. This suit was decreed and the Authorised Controller thereafter appointed him on his post on 21st March, 1977 and he took charge of the post on the same date. Shri Shadi Lal Dwivedi was treated as confirmed teacher from 24-9-1975. Since the petitioner was appointed on the vacancy caused by the termination of services of Sri Shadi Lal Dwivedi, his services could not be continued on the post after Sri Shadi Lal Dwivedi had been reinstated. Meanwhile the petitioners services stood terminated on 15-11-1976 and he did not work on that post from 16-11-1976. However, on 21-11-1976 he was appointed in the leave vacancy of Sri Radhey Shayam Sharma and he continued as such till 20th April, 1977. He has claimed that he is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Removal of Difficulties Orders - Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Orders. He has, therefore, prayed that he should be treated as continuing in the post of teacher in the institution and that the order terminating his service, dated 30th April, 1977 was bad in law.
(3.) The fact of the matter is that the petitioner is not working in the institution after 30th April, 1977. He moved an application for directing the respondents not to interfere in his working as a teacher in the College but no interim order was passed by this Court. It is not disputed by the learned counsel that the petitioner ceased to work after 30th April, 1977.;