RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court has passed the order dated 11.02.2019 as under:- "Heard Sri Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Ajay Pratap singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 5, who has filed his vakalatnama which is taken on record. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 18.08.2018 and 28.08.2018 whereby, the petitioners, who were initially appointed between the period August 1984 to July 1986, as mentioned in para 3 of the writ petition, on the post of Assistant Teacher in Acharya Diwedi Inter College, Raebareli, have been adjusted in the institutions in the Lucknow Division and the said institutions are not situated in District Raebareli.
(2.) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Acharya Diwedi Inter College, Raebareli and regularized by the Committee of Management and for the purposes of payment of salary, they approached this Court by means of the writ petition No. 5251 (S/S) of 1999 and the same had been allowed in favour of the petitioners vide judgment and order dated 03.05.2002, wherein, the the Hon'ble Court issued the direction to the State/Respondents to release the payment of salary in favour of the petitioners from the year 1999. The judgment dated 03.05.2002was challenged by the State in Special Appeal No. 251 of 2002 and the said Special Appeal was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2002. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.11.2002 passed in Special Appeal No. 251 of 2002, the State preferred a Special Leave Petition No. 1399 of 2003 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment and order dated 31.03.2003. After dismissal of the S.L.P., the official opposite parties passed the order for releasing the salary in favour of the petitioners.
(3.) It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a series of litigation between the Committee of Management as well as the petitioners and the writ petition is related with the recognition of the primary section attached to opposite party No. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the recognition has withdrawn and withdrawal of the recognition was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 2602 (M/S) of 2004 and this Court stayed the operation of the order of withdrawal of the recognition dated 17.05.2004. On query being made, it has also been informed that the said writ petition is pending disposal. While assailing the orders under challenge, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the pleadings on record, is to the effect that the State has no authority to adjust or absorb the regular employees/Assistant Teachers of Acharya Diwedi Inter College, Raebareli to other institutions in different Districts and there is no rule to the same effect and it has also been contended that the order, in view of the series of litigation, has been passed just to harass the petitioners. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has informed that the order under challenge dated 18.08.2018 is consequential order as the same is based on the order dated 3rd August, 2018 and the same ought to have been challenged and in absence of challenging the same and challenging only the consequential order, writ petition is not maintainable.;