MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. - (1.) The sole issue for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether the recommendation made by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad Board for appointment of the fifth respondent on the post of Lecturer (Geography) under the scheduled caste quota in Inter College, Nadwa Sarai, Mau is valid or not.
(2.) The institution in question is a recognised institution under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 Act and the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 Rules are applicable to it. According to the petitioner, there are in all eight sanctioned posts of lecturer in the institution, out of which four fall under the direct recruitment DR squota and the remaining four under the promotion quota. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as Lecturer (Geography) on adhoc basis on 17.9.1999. He filed writ petition no. 3094 of 2008 before this Court in which an interim order dated 30.5.2008 was passed in his favour directing the respondents to permit him to continue in service till a duly selected candidate recommended by the Commission (now Board) joins the post. In pursuance thereof, an order dated 24.3.2009 was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mau whereby he was permitted to continue in service and was also paid his salary. Ultimately, though the writ petition was dismissed, but in Special Appeal No.412 of 2012 filed by the petitioner challenging the judgement of the learned Single Judge, an interim order was again passed in his favour directing payment of salary to him. The interim order passed in the Special Appeal on 30.5.2012 is in following terms:- "In the meantime, in terms of judgment and order passed in Special Appeal No.250 of 2012 in line with the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the case of Vishwa Mohini v. DIOS and others, which is reported in 2012 (1) SCC 122, we direct that the appellant shall be paid salary by the State, which, depending upon the facts of each case, may be recovered from the Committee of Management or any other individual, as case may be, which would, however, not include the appellant, provided that the appellant was getting salary from the State exchequer on the date of impugned order dated 3.5.2012".
(3.) The specific case of the petitioner is that the interim order passed in the special appeal is still in operation and in pursuance of the said order, he is still working and drawing salary on the post of Lecturer (Geography). This fact has also not been disputed before this Court by the respondents.;