S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed against a short term vacancy as L.T. grade teacher in Dr. Karan Singh Inter College, Rahlai, Agra by its Manager following the procedure pre­scribed under IInd Removal of Difficulties Order. It has further been stated that Committee of Management submitted the papers to District Inspector of Schools for seeking approval of petitioner's appointment on 22.9.1994 copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Petitioner further asserts that D.I.O.S., Agra through order dated 10.10.1994-Annexure-5 to the writ petition granted approval to the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner on the basis of financial approval granted by accounts officer on 26.9.1994. Annexure-5 is signed by Shri V.P. Thapilyal, D.I.O.S. The raging controversy between the parties is that according to the respondents Shri Thapilyal was not D.I.O.S., Agra on 10.10.1994 while according to the petitioner Sri Thapilyal was very much D.I.O.S. on the said date. The second controversy is that dispatch no. mentioned on the alleged approval letter of D.I.O.S. relates to another order of D.I.O.S. of the said date relating to another institution. The case of the re­spondents is that Smt. Raj Pathak was D.I.O.S. at the relevant time. The case of the petitioner is that Smt. Pathak was an associate to the D.I.O.S. and had been authorized by the D.I.O.S. Shri Thapilyal to look after the routine work of D.I.O.S. as Shri Thapilyal had been deputed to look after the work of Deputy Director of Education also. I do not propose to decide this controversy in this writ petition.
(2.) EARLIER also petitions had been filed by the petitioner which were dis­posed of with the direction to decide petitioner's representation. In pursuance of the said directions, Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra passed an order against the petitioner on 3.5.2007 Annexure-10 to the writ petition which has been challenged through this writ petition. In the said order it has been held that alleged approval order of D.I.O.S. dated 10.10.1994 is fictitious (farji). Apart from it other reasons have also been given in the impugned order for rejecting petitioner's claim. One of the reasons is that in view of Full Bench authority of this Court in Radha Raijada v. Committee of Management 1995 (25) ALR 383 (HC-FB) it is essential that short term vacancy should have been advertised in two newspa­pers having wide circulation. However, the post in question was allegedly ad­vertised in Kumud Times which has got no circulation. The other reason given is that there was in-fact no vacancy. In my opinion the last two reasons given by the Regional Deputy Director of Education are quite sound. Apart from it the inordinate delay in ap­proaching the Court also goes against the petitioner. According to the peti­tioner he joined the institution on 22.9.1994 and started teaching since then but was not paid salary. However, he for the first time raised his grievance through Writ Petition No. 20724 of 1997. Even though an extremely vague al­legation has been made in para-12 of the writ petition that repeated represen­tations were made by the petitioner however, neither any date of the represen­tations has been mentioned nor copies of the said representations have been an­nexed. The allegation cannot be believed in the least. If a person is appointed and starts teaching but is not paid any salary then he is not expected to remain silent even for two or three months. In such situation normally aggrieved person is expected to approach the Court within two or three months. The inordinate delay of three years not only disentitles the petitioner for any relief but also falsifies his case. In any case filing repeated representations does not keep the claim/cause of action alive vide C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining AIR 2008 SCW 7233 and "Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan 2006 (109) FLR 724 (SC)."
(3.) D .I.O.S. has rightly held that there was no vacancy. In-fact neither there was short term vacancy nor substantive even if the allegation of the peti­tioner in this regard is taken to be correct. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the writ pe­tition it has been stated that one Prem Veer Singh, Assistant Teacher in C.T. grade in the college in question was granted ad-hoc promotion to the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade against a substantive vacancy on 15.7.1994 which was approved by D.I.O.S.;