Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 24.10.2017 passed by the second respondent i.e. District Inspector of Schools, Etawah (DIOS, Etawah), whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to make signature in the attendance register of the institution in question and also directing the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner regularly.
(3.) This much is reflected from the record in question that the institution in question namely 'K.R. Girls Inter College, Lakhana, Distt. Etawah' is recognized institution under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and receives grant-in-aid from the State Government. A vacancy was occurred after the retirement of Shri Bal Krishna Shastri, who was permanent teacher in LT Grade in the institution. After his retirement one Smt. Subhdh Gupta, who was the senior most teacher in CT Grade was promoted in LT Grade on adhoc basis. All the posts in CT Grade were declared dying cadre and were converted into LT Grade by order of the State Government. The vacancy which occurred on account of adhoc promotion of Smt. Subodh Gupta were treated as a vacancy in LT grade and the same was notified on the notice board on 20.10.1994 and published in daily news paper namely 'Dainik Din Rat'. The petitioner having the qualification of MA (English) and B.Ed. has submitted application for appointment on the said post. The Selection Committee selected her on the post of LT grade teacher. vide appointment letter dated 24.11.1994. Pursuant to the appointment letter the petitioner joined her duties in the institution in question and since then she has been continuously working as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade on adhoc basis. The Manager of the institution submitted the papers through DIOS to the Deputy Director of Education, Kanpur relating to selection and appointment of the petitioner for according financial approval to the petitioner's appointment on the post of LT grade teacher. Several reminders were also sent but of no avail. It is contended that the appointment of the petitioner was made in accordance with the provisions of Second Removal of Difficulties Order and Sub-clause (iii) of Clause 3 of the same, which provides that the DIOS shall communicate his decision in the matter of approval within seven days of receipt of papers by him failing which it will be deemed to have been approved. When nothing has been done regarding payment of salary of the petitioner, she preferred Writ Petition No.22625 of 1999, which was disposed of on 2.8.2017 with following observations:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Although notices were issued to the private respondents, none has entered appearance or filed any affidavit till date. Even the State respondents have not filed their responses in the instant writ petition. The relief sought in the petition is for the payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner with effect from 24 November 1994. The petitioner asserts that she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent institution after following the due procedure provided for under the Removal of Difficulties Orders, 1981. The State respondents do not appear to have accorded approval to the said appointment. At least no such order has been placed on the record. Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although no interim directions were issued, the petitioner has continued to serve and still discharges functions in the institution in question. He prays for the disposal of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to place the claim of the petitioner for absorption and regularization in terms of the provisions of Section 33 F of the 1982 Act for consideration and disposal. Learned Standing Counsel states that in case such a claim is laid by the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools shall place the same before the concerned authority for consideration on merits in accordance with law. Bearing in mind the fact that this petition has remained pending on the board of this Court right from 1991 coupled with the fact that no affidavit has been filed by the respondent, this Court finds no ground warranting retention of the petition any further. It shall accordingly with the consent of parties stand disposed of with the following directions: (A) The petitioner shall within a period of two weeks from today file a detailed representation before the first respondent placing before him all relevant documents and material in support of her appointment in question as also with respect to her continued functioning. (B) Upon such a representation being made, the first respondent shall have the same duly scrutinized and placed before the competent authority for disposal in accordance with law and bearing in mind the provisions of the 1982 Act which have been referred to by the learned Counsel. (C) The first respondent shall process the said representation and dispose it of expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. (D) All contentions on merits including the issue with regard to the validity of appointment and her alleged continuance are left open.";