Hon’ble Yashwant Varma, J.—The present writ petition assails the validity of the order dated 21st May, 2008 made by the respondent No. 2 in terms of which the claim of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the provisions of Section 33F of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 (hereinafter refeffered to as the Act, 1982), has been declined. This Court has heard Sri V. Singh on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad, Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Since the pleadings have been exchanged by the parties, this Court proceeded with their consent to dispose of the petition finally.

2. The relevant facts which are liable to be noticed for resolution of the controversy raised are as follows. The petitioner asserts that one Chandra Bhushan Dixit, a permanent L.T. Grade Teacher in the institution was given ad hoc promotion by the Committee of Management on 4th August, 1991. The aforesaid promotion of Sri Chandra Bhushan Dixit was accorded approval by the District Inspector of Schools in terms of his order dated 10th March, 1993. The petitioner submits that on account of above a short term vacancy arose on 4th August, 1991 and that consequent to the approval of the ad hoc promotion on 10th March, 1993 and the appointment of Sri Dixit on 2nd April, 1993, the short term vacancy stood subsequently coverted into a substantive vacancy.

3. Consequent to the vacancy being created on account of promotion of Sri Dixit, it is contended that the Committee of Management issued an advertisement calling for applications from interested persons to the post of Assistant Teacher in the institution. The petitioner appears to have applied and upon completion of the selection process was appointed by the Management on 2nd April, 1993. The papers of the appointment of the petitioner appear to have been forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools who however did not pass any orders thereon. Aggrieved by the said inaction, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 30542 of 1993 before this Court on which an interim order was made on 3rd September, 1993 requiring the respondents to pay the current salary to the petitioner every month as and when it fell due. On the basis of the said interim order of this Court, the District Inspector of Schools, on 6th October, 2007 passed orders for the payment of salary to the petitioner subject of course to the result of the writ petition.

4. This writ petition ultimately came to be disposed of by the Court by its judgment and order dated 30th October, 2007 requiring the District Inspector of Schools to forward the claim of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the provisions of the Act, 1982 to the appropriate Committee. This Court provided that the Committee would consider the validity of appointment of the petitioner and thereafter take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. It is pursuant to the above order that the impugned order came to be made on 21st May, 2008.

5. A perusal of the order impugned establishes that the sole ground on which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected is that the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 6th October, 2007 only provided for the interim payment of salary to the petitioner and that since the provisions of the Act, 1982 conferred the benefit of regularization only to such teachers who had been appointed to vacancies which came into existence prior to 7th August, 1993 and the case of the petitioner did not fall within the ambit of the said provision, it was not liable to be accepted.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the aforesaid order has been made without reference to the undisputed facts which existed on record. According to him, the short term vacancy came into existence on 4th August, 1991 and upon the ad hoc promotion being approved on 10th March, 1993 by the District Inspector of Schools, Sri Chandra Bhushan Dixit came to be confirmed on the post. It is sub