- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, a post of Lecturer in Sanskrit in Sri Hanuman Viddyamandir Inter College, Baraon, District Deoria was sanctioned by the Deputy Director of Education. Management sent the requisition to U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board through the District Inspector of School on 21. 3. 1985 and petitioner was appointed. It has further been stated that as no appointment was made by the Selection Board, hence Committee of Management through resolution dated 7. 7. 1985 appointed the petitioner on the said post under section 18 of U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982. It has further been stated that papers for grant of financial approval were sent to the D. I. O. S. on 9. 7. 1985 and D. I. O. S. through order dated 26. 10. 1985 granted the financial approval till regular candidate joined the post or till the end of Session whichever was earlier. It has been stated that peti tioner was paid salary only till June, 1986. It has further been stated that peti tioner made several representations from September, 1986 to November, 1990 but no salary was paid and then on 5. 12. 1991, petitioner claimed through repre sentation that he was entitled to regularisation by virtue of ordinance dated 6. 4. 1991, through which section 33-A was added in U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (later on it was converted into an Act ). Prayer made in this writ petition is for direction to pay salary from July, 1986 till date and to regularise the services of the petitioner. In this writ petition, on 21. 2. 1992, an interim order was passed to the following effect : "in the meantime, the petitioner is allowed to work as ad hoc teacher in lecturer grade and shall be paid his salary. " Thereafter, writ petition was dismissed in default on 21. 10. 1992 but was re stored on 29. 3. 1993. The case was again dismissed in default on 27. 4. 2007 and was restored on 23. 9. 2008 on which date arguments on merit were also heard. The assertion, that after June, 1986, petitioner continue to work without salary is not, at all, believable. The alleged representations dated 9. 9. 1986 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and 5. 12. 1991 (Annexure-9 to the writ peti tion) are nothing but eyewash. There was absolutely no explanation as to why after two or three months of non-payment of salary, petitioner did not come to the Court. The D. I. O. S. had approved the appointment only until 30. 6. 1986. Accordingly, there was absolutely no question for the D. I. O. S. to make payment of any further salary. The representations even if made were meaningless. The Supreme Court in C. Jacob v. Director,} has held that by filing representations, a claim cannot be kept live. It is abundantly clear that petitioner did not work from July, 1986 till the filing the writ petition in February, 1992. Further, as petitioner was not working since July, 1986, hence he was not entitled to any regularisation.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, writ petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that whatever salary has been paid to the pe titioner shall not be refundable. From today onward no salary shall be paid to the petitioner.;