Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ramesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
(2.) The solitary reason on which claim of regularisation appears to have been rejected is that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being Writ - A No. 42827 of 1997 wherein by order dated 15.10.1998, a direction had been issued for payment of salary to the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition.
(3.) While rejecting the claim for regularisation, the Regularisation Committee has adverted to Section 33-G(8) of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. For ready reference Section 33-G(8) reads as below: "Adhoc teachers, who have not been appointed either in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 or in accordance with Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and are otherwise getting salary only on the basis of Interim/Final orders of the Court shall not be entitled for regularisation.";