Chandra Dhari Singh, J. - (1.) In all the contempt petitions, similar relief (s) has been prayed for by the applicants/petitioners, therefore, they are being decided collectively by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of Contempt Petition No.2622 of 2015 (Nirankar Pathak and others vs. Sri Ashish Goel, Posted As Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. & Ors.) are being taken up for deciding the matter.
(2.) All the contempt petitions have been filed for willful non-compliance of order dated 29.04.2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in a Bunch of Special Appeals leading Special Appeal No.530 of 2004 (U.P. Board of Basic Education vs. Om Prakash Shukla and others) by which it was directed to the opposite parties to consider the case of the appellants. The operative portion of the order reads as under: "We, therefore, while upholding the order passed by the learned Single Judge direct that all such candidates be considered for being sent on training as per Rules and it norms by giving them preference but for that matter, age will not come in their way and their candidatures shall not be rejected merely on the ground of being over age. Let aforesaid exercise be completed within a maximum period of two months. The candidates who are selected for being sent for Special B.T.C. Training Course shall be considered for appointment as per Rules. We further direct that all those candidates who have filed writ petitions and if they have worked, for any period, they shall be paid salary only for the period for which tehy had worked. With the aforesaid directives, all the Special Appeals stands disposed of."
(3.) The brief facts of the case for proper adjudication of the contempt petitions are as follows: i. On 19.01.1991, 315 posts of Assistant Teachers in Basic and Primary School, District Bahraich were advertised and the qualification of the candidates having B.T.C. or equivalent to B.T.C. were required. Some of the applicants, who had possessed B.Ed. degree have not been found eligible and their applications were not entertained. They have filed a Bunch of writ petitions leading No.2447 (S/S) of 1991 (Triveni Prasad Pandey and others vs. State of U.P. and others) before this Court. All the writ petitions were partly allowed by a common judgment and order dated 23.12.1992, against which the State of U.P. has preferred a Special Appeal bearing No.21 of 1993 (State of U.P. Vs. Triveni Prasad Pandey), which was dismissed on 01.11.2001. The Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Suprme Court by the State against the judgment and order dated 01.11.2001 passed by the Division Bench. The Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.04.2002. Another Special Leave Petition has also been filed against the judgment and order dated 01.11.2001, which was also dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 01.08.2003. ii. On 20.12.1995, nearly 1000 (one thousand) fresh vacancies of Assistant Teacher in Bahraich District were advertised in which the qualification was B.T.C. or equivalent to B.T.C. Against the said advertisement dated 20.12.1995, various writ petitions were filed. The said writ petitions were decided by common judgment and order dated 30.11.2002 extending the benefit of judgment and order dated 23.12.1992 passed in the Bunch of petitions leading No.2447 (S/S) of 1991 (Triveni Prasad Pandey and others vs. State of U.P. and others) and also the benefit of judgment and order dated 01.11.2001 passed in Special Appeal no.21 of 1993 (State of U.P. Vs. Triveni Prasad Pandey). iii. Several contempt petitions were filed for non-compliance of the order dated 30.11.2012. The State of U.P. vide order dated 10.04.2003 and 28.05.2003 had given the appointment to all the candidates. They had joined their services. iv. Vide order dated 07.08.2003; 08.08.2003 and 11.08.2003, the appointments so made as Assistant Teacher were cancelled by declaring all appointments as void abinitio. v. Against the cancellation of the appointments, several writ petitions were filed before the High Court. Interim orders were also passed by the High Court in the writ petitions. During the pendency of the writ petitions, an advertisement dated 22.01.2004 was issued for the selection of Special B.T.C. training. Vide order dated 26.05.2004, the High Court, Lucknow Bench has modified the interim order to the extent that the result of the selection for Special B.T.C. Training can be declared but the selected candidates shall not be appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers occupied by the writ petitioners. It was further directed that 263 posts shall be kept vacant till the disposal of the writ petitions. Subsequently, all the writ petitions which were filed against the cancellation of the appointment were decided by common judgment and order dated 17.09.2004 passed by the learned Single Bench. The operative portion of the order reads as under : "In view of the above, all the aforesaid writ petitions are disposed of finally with the following directions : The impugned orders of cancellation of appointment in case of the petitioners who were party to the writ petitions which were decided as bunch of writ petitions vide judgment dated 13.12.1992, Annexure 7, are set aside. They will be reinstated on their posts on which they were working at the time of issuance of the impugned orders of cancellation of appointments. They shall also be paid salary for the period they have worked as Teacher. They will be considered for sending Special B. T. C. Course, 2004. In case of the other petitioners who are not party in the writ petitions decided on 23.12.1992 vide judgment Annexure 7, the impugned orders for cancellation of appointment are set aside on the statement of Advocate General with the direction to the opposite parties to consider their cases for selection to the special B.T.C. course irrespective of the fact whether they have applied for the same or not. If they are found suitable in accordance with the amended provision under the Basic Teachers Education Rules, they will be sent for Special B.T.C. Course 2004 in preference of others. The age limit will not come in their way if they have crossed the upper age limit in litigating the matter after their appointment and if they were within the maximum age limit on the date of the earlier appointment they will be entitled to get relaxation in age if they are over age on the date of consideration for special B.T.C. These petitioners will be paid salary for the period they have worked and they will not be entitled to get any salary till they are sent for training to Special B.T.C. They will be given the same allowance during the training period which other candidates of Special B.T.C. shall be paid and after completion of Special B.T.C. they will be given appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in primary schools like others. These directions shall be complied with within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment." vi. Against the said order dated 17.09.2004, various special appeals had been filed and the said special appeals were decided by common judgment and order dated 29.04.2008. The judgment and order dated 29.04.2008 were not complied with by the State/opposite parties, then the applicants have filed various contempt petitions including the present one before this Court. vii. The State Government had preferred Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble the Apex Court. Hon'ble the Apex Court vide order dated 26.09.2008, stayed the contempt proceedings pending before this court. Vide order dated 09.09.2011, the interim order dated 26.09.2008 was vacated. The State has filed the recall application of the order dated 09.09.2011, which was rejected vide order dated 07.12.2011 and the Hon'ble Apex Court directed to the opposite parties to comply with the judgment and order dated 29.04.2008 within a period of ten weeks. viii. After the order dated 07.12.2011 passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the Secretary, Basic Education had given an undertaking on 08.12.2011 to comply with the judgment and order dated 29.04.2008. On the basis of undertaking given, the Secretary, Basic Education has issued an order dated 06.03.2012 canceling the termination order dated 07.08.2003. Thereafter another Government Order dated 16.04.2012 was issued directing the Director of Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow to ensure the compliance of the order passed by this Court. ix. Special Leave Petitions filed against the judgment and order dated 29.04.2008 came up for hearing on 03.09.2015, where statement was made that the process for issuance of appointment letters were in process and the decision shall be taken within four weeks. Vide order dated 14.10.2015, all the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed. The State has filed a recall application for recall of judgment and order dated 14.10.2015 but the same had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.09.2016. The State has filed a review application for reviewing of the judgment and order dated 14.10.2015 before Hon'ble the Apex Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2017.;