Ajit Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
(2.) The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by order passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur dated 20.07.2005 passed in compliance of the order of this Court dated 28.05.1999, whereby, direction was issued to consider the merit of the claim of petitioner for regularization. The said writ petition has questioned the order dated 17.08.1991, whereby, the financial approval to the petitioner's appointment was refused on the ground that there was a ban on ad-hoc appointment against short term vacancy in L.T. Grade. Since the order of year 1991 passed by District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter to be referred as 'DIOS') refusing to accord financial approval, it appears, did not come to be quashed while passing the order dated 28.05.1999 in writ petition no. 9136 of 1992, it transpires from the record that the Regional Joint Director of Education proceeded to hold that his appointment even otherwise was invalid and that he cannot be treated to be validly continuing in service and the benefit provided for in terms of Section 33-B cannot be granted.
(3.) This is third round of litigation before this Court in the matter of claim of valid appointment and consequential regularization in view of the amendment being introduced in U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act No. 5 of 1982') from time to time. The claim of the petitioner is that in spite of his selection being made validly by the Committee of Management following the procedure as prescribed for under [U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties)(Second) Order, 1981 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981')], and on the papers thereof having been forwarded by within time on 20.07.1991, it was a duty incumbent upon the DIOS to have communicated the Committee of Management about his decision. Since the DIOS did not act upon the proposed within stipulated period of time in view of the fiction of deemed approval being created under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981', the petitioner was appointed by Committee of Management vide appointment letter dated 02.08.1991 and this is how he came to be working in the Institution since 02.08.1991. The relevant paragraphs with regard to non communication of decision being made by DIOS to the Institution even after papers being forwarded to him contain are reproduced hereunder: "12.That on the basis of the resolution passed by the Committee of Management dated 19.07.1991 the Manager of the Committee of Management forwarded the relevant papers relating to the appointment of petitioner before the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria on 20.07.1991 for granting the financial approval. A true copy of the letter of the Manager of the Committee of Management dated 20.07.1991 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition. 13.That the letter dated 20.07.1991 of the Manager of the Committee of Management was received by the office of District Inspector of Schools, Deoria on 22.07.1991 but the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria had failed to communicate his decision within the period prescribed under rule 2 of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board (Removal of Difficulties Order) (Second), 1981. The rule (2) of the second Removal of Difficulties Order provides that if the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria had failed to communicate his decision within seven days of the receipt of papers then the adhoc appointment will be deemed to be approved.";