Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—This writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 5.12.2008. Thereafter restoration application was filed which was allowed on 11.9.2008 and on the same date arguments of learned counsel for both the parties on the merit of the writ petition were heard.

2. Petitioners who are five in number claim to have been appointed as ad-hoc assistant teachers in L.T. Grade in Intermediate College Machlishahar, Jaunpur which is a privately managed, but recognized and aided institution. Petitioners claimed that they were appointed on 8.7.1991 under Section 18 of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Boards Act 1982 as it stood at that time. It has been alleged in para-3 of the writ petition that the Manager through letter dated 12.4.1991 intimated the District Inspector of Schools about five existing vacancies of teachers in L.T. Grade in the College in question and that on 15.6.1991 a reminder was also sent (para-4) and that on 12.4.1991 vacancies were intimated to the Selection Board/Commission also under certificate of posting (U.P.C.). It has further been alleged in para-6 that as Selection Commission did not send the names of selected candidates hence vacancies were advertised on 26.6.1991. Annexure-4 is alleged copy of advertisement according to which advertisement was affixed on the notice board of the college and of Tehsil Cantt Machlishahar. In the said advertisement it was mentioned that nine temporary posts of L.T. Grade teachers were vacant. Thereafter it is mentioned that petitioners appeared before the Selection Committee and were duly selected and appointed. It is further alleged that Committee of Management passed resolution for appointment on 7.7.1991 and on the same date appointment letters were issued to the petitioners and on the next date i.e. 8.7.1991 they joined the posts. Thereafter it is mentioned that on 19.8.1991 the Manager sent the requisite papers for financial approval regarding petitioners appointment to the D.I.O.S. The D.I.O.S. through letter dated 31.8.1991 refused to grant approval. Said order is Annexure-9 to the writ petition.

3. Earlier also petitioners had filed writ petition against order of D.I.O.S. dated 31.8.1991 which was disposed of by directing the D.I.O.S. to decide the representation. Thereafter it is stated that associate D.I.O.S., Jaunpur submitted a favourable report, copy of which is Annexure-11 to the writ petition still salary was not paid to the petitioners. In the report it was mentioned that appointment of four out of five petitioners could be considered and in respect of 5th petitioner management could be directed to pay salary. Thereafter another writ petition was filed by the petitioners which was again disposed of on 21.1.1992 through Annexure-12 directing the D.I.O.S. to decide the matter.

4. Thereafter it is mentioned that matter had already been decided by the D.I.O.S. on 10.12.1991, copy of the said order is Annexure-14 which has been challenged through this writ petition. In Annexure-14 it is mentioned that no requisition for being sent to the Board was received in the office of D.I.O.S. Even in the earlier report of associate D.I.O.S. Annexure-11 no requisition was found to have been sent by the management to the D.I.O.S. In the report of associate D.I.O.S. it was mentioned that on the basis of students’ strength management could appoint four additional teachers. In the report it was mentioned that in the year 1972 there were 40 teachers. However, before enforcement of the Act of 1982 it was essential to appoint the teacher within three months from occurrence of vacancy otherwise post was to be treated as dead.

5. During hearing of restoration application in this writ petition, learned Standing Counsel was directed to seek instruction regarding sanctioned strength and position of payment to the teachers of the college in question including the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel placed on record order dated 27.8.1999 passed by Joint Sec