Hon’ble Shiva Kirti Singh, A.C.J.—This intra-Court appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 18.9.2012, whereby writ petition bearing No. 47705 of 2012 preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. There is no dispute on facts which have been correctly noticed by the writ Court which has held that once the appointment of the petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellant’) is found to be illegally made, then his claim for regularisation could not be accepted. Accordingly, the writ Court refused to interfere with the decision dated 11.7.2012 taken by the Screening Committee constituted under Section 33-B of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1982’). By that decision, the Screening Committee has turned down the claim of the appellant for grant of benefit of regularisation.

3. The relevant facts lie within a narrow compass. A post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade fell vacant in the Municipal Inter College, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad on account of retirement of one teacher of the College on 30.6.1990. The College is a recognized institution governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as well as various Regulations framed thereunder and receives grant-in-aid from the State Government. The vacancy occurring on 30.6.1990 was notified to the Board. According to the appellant, when no selection was made by the Board, the post was advertised on the Notice Board and the appellant was selected and appointed to the post through order dated 23.8.1990 on ad hoc basis till joining of candidate selected by the Board. For the purpose of seeking approval, relevant papers were placed before the District Inspector of Schools on 27.7.1991. When approval was not granted by the District Inspector of Schools and no salary was paid to the appellant, he filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3152 of 1992, wherein an interim order was passed on 30.1.1992 and on the strength of the interim order, the appellant continued in service and also received salary. However, said writ petition was ultimately dismissed by order dated 1.12.2011. Against the said order, the appellant preferred Special Appeal No. 173 of 2012, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.1.2012 whereby the order of the learned Single Judge was modified by directing the Screening Committee to consider the case of the appellant for regularisation as per Section 33-B of the Act, 1982. The Screening Committee rejected the claim of regularisation by decision dated 11.7.2012 and against that, the related writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by judgment and order impugned in this appeal.

4. A perusal of order dated 11.7.2012 shows that the Screening Committee, after considering all the relevant facts and materials, came to the conclusion that appointment of the appellant was against law and did not fall within the purview of appointments which could be regularised. The Committee noticed that the appointment of the appellant was made without seeking permission from the departmental authorities and in violation of the procedure laid down in Section 18 of the Act, 1982. The learned Single Judge has also held that substantive vacancies, like one at hand, were required to be filled up in accordance with the procedure prescribed under First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and, admittedly, the said procedure was not adhered to. Since the appointment of the appellant was made de-hors the statutory procedure, the learned Single Judge held the appointment to be a nullity in view of the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada and others v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and others, 1994(2) ESC 345 (FB), and that regularisation of such appointment would run counter to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cas