DILIP GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25th April, 2008 passed by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), VII Region, Gorakhpur whereby the claim of the petitioners for payment of salary has been rejected. It needs to be mentioned that earlier the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 70736 of 2006 which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2006 in terms of the judgment rendered by the Court on 18th October, 2006 in Writ Petition No. 57868 of 2006 (Tilak Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,).
(2.) A perusal of the said judgment in Tilak Singh (supra) indicates that the Director of Education (Basic) U.P. Lucknow, was directed to take appropriate action in the light of the observations made in the judgment. In the writ petition, the petitioners have come out with a case that petitioner No. 1 was appointed in the Institution on 4th July, 1976, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were appointed on 1st July, 1977 and petitioner No. 4 was appointed in the month of November, 1976 and ever since then have been teaching in the Institution and voluminous documents show that the petitioners have been teaching in the Institution. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari by letter No. 3133/1988-89 dated 20th September, 1989 approved the appointment of the petitioners. It has further been stated that the Institution was put in the grant-in-aid list by the order dated 2nd December, 2006 but the Committee of Management did not deliberately include the names of the petitioners in the list of teachers and added certain other names.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the averments made in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the petition that on the date fixed, the petitioners appeared before the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) and made a submission that they may be supplied copies of the documents filed by the other side but without supplying the copies of the documents the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), passed the impugned order holding that the order dated 20th September, 1989 on which reliance was placed by the petitioners was a forged document. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Director of Education (Basic) U.P. Lucknow did not decide the matter and authorised the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), VII Region, Gorakhpur to decide the matter. He further submitted that voluminous documents were filed by the petitioners to show that they had been appointed as Assistant Teachers and they had been working throughout but these documents have not been considered.;