Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Both these writ petitions are against the same order and, therefore, as agreed by learned counsel for the parties the same are being heard and decided finally under the Rules of this Court at this stage.

2. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Sri J.H. Khan, Advocate for respondent No. 5, Sri M.A. Qadir, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No. 6 and perused the record.

3. In Writ Petition No. 19505 of 2008, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.3.2008 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, J.P. Nagar holding that the direct appointment of petitioner on the post of Lecturer (Civics) in I.M. Inter College, Amroha, J.P. Nagar is not valid since that post ought to have been filled in by promotion of respondent No. 5, hence it has revoked its approval dated 19.9.2005 whereby the petitioner’s appointment on the post of Lecturer (Civics) was made and has directed for promotion of respondent No. 5 on the post of Lecturer (Civics) which shall be effective from the date of his taking over charge.

4. Sri Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that firstly the District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction at all to decide as to in what manner the vacancy in a minority institution could have been filled in and that choice vests in management, hence the order of District Inspector of Schools is wholly without jurisdiction and placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Committee of Management, Sri Kund Kund Jain Inter College, Muzaffar Nagar v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(3) ESC 1528. Secondly, he submits that earlier this Court has considered the matter in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59082 of 2005, (Shane Raza v. State of U.P. and others), decided on 23.10.2007 and directed the District Inspector of Schools to consider the question as to whether the post of Lecturer (Civics) is liable to be filled in by promotion or by direct recruitment but instead of deciding this issue independently the District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to pass the impugned order by observing that the High Court itself has observed that the post of Lecturer (Civics) ought to have been filled in by promotion and hence there is no independent application of mind by the District Inspector of Schools. Thirdly, he submits that there was an inquiry pending against the respondent No. 5 in respect to the allegation that he passed B.Ed. examination while in service and for this reason management chose not to promote him but ignoring this, the District Inspector of Schools has passed the impugned order which is contrary to the choice of the management and, therefore, is illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. He lastly submits that the repsondent No. 5 is going to attain the age of superannuation on 30.6.2011 and, therefore, also the petitioner should not be disturbed.

5. Having considered the above submission, however, I find no force in any of the aforesaid submissions.

6. The question whether the post in question, i.e., Lecturer (Civics), fell vacant on 1.7.2003 alongwith two other in the subjects, i.e., English and Hindi, could have been filled in by promotion or direct recruitment itself came to be considered before this Court in the case of Shane Raza (supra) which was filed by the respondent No. 5. In that writ petition the present petitioner, i.e., Faheem Haider was impleaded as respondent No. 5 and the committee of management was impleaded as respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 5 in that writ petition was represented by Sri P.S. Baghel, Advocate and Sri Sanjeev Singh, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Sri P.S. Baghel has actually appeared before this Court. So far as the respondent No. 4 is concerned, despite the case taken in revised list, none appeared on his behalf.

7. After considering the matter this Court observed:

“In fact, in para 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Management, it is c