Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Petitioner before this Court claims to have been appointed on ad hoc basis against a vacancy caused in L.T. Grade on account of retirement of one Harish Chandra Srivastava on 30th June, 1991. According to the petitioner an advertisement was published by the Committee of Management of the institution, D.A.V. Intermediate College, Meerapur, Allahabad for ad hoc appointment against said vacancy. The petitioner, who was possessed of the prescribed qualification applied in response thereto. He was placed at serial No. 1 in the merit list prepared by Selection Committee. The Management of the institution passed a resolution dated 15th March, 1992 offering ad hoc appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner was infact issued an appointment letter by the Management on 17th March, 1992. Papers qua appointment of the petitioner were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad for grant of financial approval. The District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 1st June, 1992 refused to accord financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner and directed as follows :

"mDr ifjis{; esa vki }kjk izLrkfor mDr rnFkZ fu;qfDr vLohdkj dh tkrh gSA ;fn blds foijhr vH;FkhZ dks dk;Zjr djk;k tkrk gS rks mlds osrukfn ds fy, izcU/k ra= mRrjnk;h gksxkA"

3. This order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 1st June, 1992 was subjected to challenge before this Court by the petitioner vide Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24533 of 1992 (Ravindra Nath Kushwaha v. District Inspector of Schools and two others). In the said writ petition petitioner was granted an interim order dated 14th July, 1992, which provided that the District Inspector of Schools may pass suitable orders qua claim of the petitioner for salary, inasmuch as in the meantime ban imposed on ad hoc appointment had been removed. The District Inspector of Schools is stated to have passed an order dated 20th January, 1993, which provided for payment of salary to the petitioner with reference to the interim order of this Court dated 14th July, 1992. In the last two lines of the order the District Inspector of Schools, it is specifically recorded as follows :

“;g Hkqxrku ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds ;kfpdk la0 24533@92 esa ikfjr vxzslj vkns’k@fu.kZ; ds v/khu gksxkA”

4. Petitioner was however, advised to get the writ petition dismissed as not pressed. The writ petition was so dismissed under order of this Court dated 23rd January, 2009 (A copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-16 to the writ petition).

5. Petitioner has now approached this Court by this petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in view of Section 33-C of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1982’ ).

6. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that petitioner got the writ petition dismissed as not pressed only because of an assurance held out by the Regional Joint Director of Education, Allahabad Region, Allahabad that his claim for regularization shall be considered, if he withdraws the writ petition. Reference in that regard is made to paragraph-3 of the withdrawal application along with an affidavit enclosed as Annexure-15 to the writ petition, which reads as follows :

“3. That now the respondent authorities have assured the petitioner that in case the petitioner withdraw the instant writ petition he will be regularized as per Section 33-C (1) of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 as inserted vide U.P. Act No. 25 of 1998.”

7. The authorities are not considering the claim of the writ petitioner for regularization. Hence this petition.

8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the present writ petition.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Committee of Managemen