Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Shri V.K. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, Sri Rakesh Pandey, the learned counsel for the Committee of Management and Sri V.K. Goel and Sri D.S.M. Tripathi, the learned counsels for the respondent No. 6 and Sri Rajendra Pratap, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the connected writ petition.

2. Before coming to the impugned order, it would be necessary to give a brief background which led to filing of the writ petition.

3. On 30.6.1986, a post of lecturer in Sanskrit became vacant in P.D.N.D. Inter College, Chunar in Mirzapur. The said post was advertised and a panel of three persons was recommended by the Selection Committee. It is alleged that the name of the respondent No. 6 was placed at the top of the select panel but by some error, the Committee of Management passed a resolution in favour of one Surendra Narain Pandey and forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur. The respondent No. 6, raised a protest and submitted a representation before the authorities which remained pending and, in the meanwhile, the District Inspector of Schools granted approval of the appointment of Sri Surendra Narayan Pandey as a lecturer in Sanskrit in the said institution, vide its order dated 12.2.1987. The order of the approval was limited till regularly selected candidate was appointed by the Commission or till 20.5.1987 whichever was earlier.

4. It transpires that no selection was made by the Commission and the appointment of Sri Surendra Narain Pandey lapsed after 20.5.1987. Sri Surendra Narain Pandey filed writ petition No. 14281 of 1987 praying that he may be treated to be in continuous service and that he should be paid his salary. This writ petition was eventually dismissed by a judgment dated 25.1.1989. It was found that Sri Surendra Narayan Pandey was wrongly approved by the Committee of Management and that the respondent No. 6 was placed at serial No.1 of the select panel. The Court further found that no appointment letter was ever issued by the Authorised Controller and that the approval accorded by the District Inspector of Schools to Sri Surendra Narain Pandey would not validate his appointment since no appointment letter was issued to him by the Authorised Controller. The Court, accordingly directed the Management to take fresh steps for an appointment of a lecturer in Sanskrit.

5. It transpires that Sri Surendra Narain Pandey filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India which was also dismissed eventually by an order dated 11.7.1989. During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition, the respondents intimated the Supreme Court that the petitioner had been appointed as a lecturer and, based on this statement, the petitioner was impleaded. It has come on record that the petitioner filed a counter affidavit in the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India.

6. Pursuant to the dismissal of the writ petition of Sri Surendra Narain Pandey, it transpires that the Management advertised the post afresh. According to the petitioner, the advertisement was made on 28.3.89 and the name of the petitioner was recommended and that the Committee of Management forwarded the papers of the petitioner for necessary approval to the District Inspector of Schools, who by an order dated 3.4.1989, accorded approval and, based on this approval, it is alleged that the petitioner joined w.e.f. 4.4.1989 and, since then, the petitioner is working as a lecturer in the institution till date.

7. On the other hand, the respondents have taken a stand, namely, that the Authorised Controller, pursuant to the dismissal of the writ petition No. 14281 of 1987, the post was advertised on 28.1.1989 and only three persons applied including respondent No. 6 and that the name of the respondent No. 6 was recommended by the Selection Committee and approved thereafter by the authorised controller and t