By the Court.—The State, through its officers of the Basic Education Department is in appeal, defending its action of declaring the alleged appointment of about 283 Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools, who were possessed of B.Ed. (Correspondence course) qualifications as illegal, and to prevent them from claiming any continuance as Assistant Teachers or consequential benefits including payment of salary.

2. All three appeals have been heard together as they arise out of the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 20031 of 1999 dated 22.4.2009 followed by another learned Single Judge in two petitions being Writ Petition No. 20061 of 1999 and Writ Petition No. 20354 of 1999 giving rise to these appeals.

3. The common ground of challenge in all the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge was that the order dated 17.4.2009 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Etah whereby general directions had been issued not to give effect to the alleged appointment orders of the respondents-writ petitioners in all the three appeals is unlawful. It was urged by the respondents-writ petitioners that the said order had been passed without any notice or opportunity even though the petitioners had already joined and started working as assistant teachers in their respective institutions. The writ petitions were allowed and the order dated 17.4.1999 was quashed with a mandamus to the appellants to permit the petitioners to work and function as assistant teachers in their respective institutions and to pay them salary.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition, it is stated that interim orders were passed in all three petitions, which read as under :

“Mr. P.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 pray for and are granted four weeks’ time for filing counter-affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any may be filed within one week thereafter. List the petition for admission in the week commencing 30th August, 1999.

Petitioners are directed to serve the respondent No. 2 personally as also by registered post A/D for which step is to be taken within a week. Respondent No. 2 may also file counter-affidavit, if any, within the aforesaid period of four weeks.

In view of the contentions made by the respective parties and as no finding has reached in respect of the appointment of the petitioners until further orders the respondents will allow the petitioners to continue in service and pay them salary in accordance with law. But, this order will not prevent the respondents from making any appropriate inquiry in respect of the appointments of the petitioners and to take appropriate action in terms of the decision of such inquiry.”

5. The appellants appear to have not complied with the said directions, which resulted in filing of contempt petitions before this Court and the same are stated to be pending. The writ petitions were ultimately allowed vide judgment dated 22.4.2009 and 30.7.2009 respectively.

6. We have heard Sri K.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Anoop Misra who has appeared for all the contesting respondents in these appeals.

7. Sri Kushwaha contends that during the pendency of the contempt matters, after the decision in the writ petitions, an inquiry was conducted as per the directions given in the orders passed and the inquiry reveals that the respondents-writ petitioners were neither qualified nor were they appointed by following any prescribed procedure of selection. They were not working and their claim was staked on the basis of fake and forged appointment orders. Consequently, taking notice of the said inquiry in which all the respondents-petitioners were put to notice and had participated, the District Basic Education Officer has passed an order on 30.6.2010 holding that the respondents-writ petitioners were not entitled to claim any continuance as assistant teachers and that the action