- (1.) THIS Special Appeal is directed against the interim order dated 8-6-2006 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 31472 of 2006.
(2.) THE writ petition had been filed by Rajesh Bharti, respondent No. 1 in the Special Appeal for a direction upon the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'board') to appoint the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in English in the Ram Lakhan Singh Inter College, Rampur (hereinafter referred to as the 'rampur College') and for other consequential reliefs. The learned Judge, while admitting the Appeal, issued notice to the respondents to file a counter- affidavit and further restrained the Board from taking any further action pursuant to the letter dated 13- 4-2006 sent by the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'dios') to the Commission informing it that the petitioner cannot be appointed in the Vindeshwari Inter College, Tulsi Nagar, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'azamgarh College') on account of the judgment and order dated 9-7-2002 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 10871 of 1996 filed by Udai Raj Vishwakarma, the appellant in this Special Appeal. Liberty was also granted to the petitioner to make a representation to the DIOS to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order. The records reveal that Raj Kumar Gupta, the regular Principal of the Azamgarh College retired on 30- 6-2004. One Raghunath Pandey, who was working as the English Lecturer in the said College was appointed as the ad hoc Principal and against the short-term vacancy that was caused on the post of English Lecturer the present appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis by means of the letter dated 24-7- 1994. The DIOS, however, did not grant approval to his appointment and his Appeal before the Joint Director of Education was also rejected by the order dated 28-2-1996. These two orders were challenged by Udai Raj Vishwakarma by filing Writ Petition No. 10871 of 1996 in which the operation of the aforesaid impugned orders was initially stayed and ultimately the petition was allowed by means of the judgment and order dated 9-7-2002. The operative part of the judgment is quoted below: "taking into account totality of the circumstances of the case and settled position that an ad hoc should not be replaced by another ad-hoc since there is nothing on record to show that any candidate appointed by the Commission joined till date, I quash the impugned order dated September 4, 1995 and February 28, 1996 (Annexures 9 and 15 to the writ petition) and direct that petitioner shall be allowed to continue on the post, pay salary as may have become due to him under law/relevant Government orders alongwith 12% per annum simple interest on the arrears and he shall be paid salary month by month in future giving due credit on revised pay-scales etc. if any, alongwith other privileges, perks etc. "
(3.) A Special Appeal being Special Appeal No. (87) of 2003 was filed against the aforesaid order, which is pending disposal in this Court. The present appellant also filed Contempt Petition No. 1159 of 2003 as salary was not paid to him and this Court passed the following order on 3-11-2003: "having considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, prima facie I am satisfied that there is wilful and deliberate violation of the order of the writ Court. But, considering the pendency of the defective Special Appeal, the opposite party No. 2 may comply with the order at least by paying current salary from the date of the judgment of the writ Court within a month, otherwise he shall appear in Court to enable the Court to frame charges against him on 9-12-2003. Let a copy of this order be sent alongwith notice to opposite party No. 2 within a week. A copy of this order be also given to learned Standing Counsel for compliance. List on 9-12-2003. " In the meantime, the process for filling up the vacancy on a regular basis was also initiated by the Board by issuing the advertisement No. 1 of 2003. Rajesh Bharti, the writ petitioner also submitted an application pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. He was ultimately selected by the Board and a communication dated 24-12-2005 was sent by the Board to the DIOS with a copy to the Committee of Management intimating that he had been selected in the Azamgarh College as a Lecturer in English. The DIOS then wrote a communication dated 4-2-2006 to the Manager of the Azamgarh College to issue an appointment letter to him. However, the Manager of the said College, by means of the communication dated 25-4-2006 informed the DIOS that on the post, on which the Board had appointed Rajesh Bharti, Udai Raj Vishwakarma, was already working on ad hoc basis pursuant to the judgment and order dated 9-7-2002 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 10871 of 1996 and the order passed in Contempt Petition. It is upon receipt of the aforesaid letter that the DIOS sent the communication dated 13-4-2006 to the Secretary of the Board for passing appropriate orders. On the record there is another communication dated 26-5-2006 sent by the DIOS, Jaunpur to the Secretary of the Board pointing out that a post of Lecturer in English is vacant in the Jaunpur College. Rajesh Bharti, thereafter filed a petition for a direction upon the Board to appoint him as a Lecturer in English in the Jaunpur College. The learned Judge, while admitting the writ petition, restrained the Board from taking any further action on the basis of the letter dated 13-4-2006 sent by the DIOS.;