- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) Four posts of Lecturers in the subject of English, Sanskrit, Hindi and Civics were created in the institution on 17.1.1985. It is claimed that the petitioner was appointed by direct recruitment on ad hoc basis against the aforesaid newly created post of Lecturer Sanskrit by the Committee of Management on 10th July, 1985. The ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was also approved under order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 19.8.1985, which was limited till 30th June, 1986.
(3.) The petitioner, therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 12014 of 1986 wherein an interim order was passed on 23.7.1986 permitting the petitioner to continue till regular appointment is made. The petitioner as such claims to have continued as ad hoc Lecturer. On the strength of amendments made to the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, whereby Section 33-A(1-c) was added, petitioner has set up a claim for regularization. However, his Writ Petition No. 12014 of 1986 was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 7.8.2002, which provided that the petitioner would continue in employment as ad hoc Lecturer till a candidate dully recommended by the Commission joins the post. The said order has became final between the parties and has not been challenged. On 3rd October, 2002 an order is said to have been |passed by the District Inspector of Schools with reference to amendments enforced on 6.4.1991 regularizing the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer Sanskrit.;