- (1.) Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that W.P.(S) No. 1127 of 2004 has been filed by the School against the direction of the Education Department to reinstate one Teacher-Kripa Aind on the ground that there was no such order by any competent court for reinstatement. On 27.2.2004, an order of status quo was passed in that case. He further submitted that petitioner was appointed after following the procedure in the year 2006 which has been approved by the Education Department and thereafter she has been adjusted against the post which fell vacant on retirement of another Teacher-Mrs. Boas Herenj and in any event the order of status quo cannot be made a ground for stopping the salary of the petitioner from March, 2008.
(2.) Mr. Shrivastava, appearing for the School-respondent No. 4, supports the stands of the petitioner.
(3.) However, counsel for the State, referring to the counter affidavit, submitted that in view of the order of status quo, petitioner could not have been appointed. In view of the fact that petitioner was appointed and adjusted against vacant post and still one post is lying vacant, her salary cannot be stopped on the ground of the order of status quo passed in the said writ petition.;