Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The batch of writ petitions are primarily raising challenge to the order dated 27 April 2010 passed by the fourth respondent-District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad (DIOS), whereby, absorption of the petitioners on Class-IV post in the intermediate institution has been cancelled. The petitions are being heard together, on consent, as it involves similar facts and law.

3. Mahanand Mission Harijan Viddyalaya Inter College is an institution duly recognized and in grant-in-aid of the State, which is governed by the Intermediate Act, 1921 (Intermediate Act) and Regulations framed thereunder. Petitioners claim to have been appointed on Class-IV post on 1 July 1996. Their appointment was approved by DIOS on 6 July 1996. It appears that on an audit objection, salary bill of the petitioners was stopped on 21 July 1998 for the reason that they were appointed beyond the sanctioned strength of Class IV post. Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition bearing Writ Petition No. 35212 of 1998 (Devendra Kumar Sharma and others v. District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad and others), which was disposed of on 13 November 1998 directing the DIOS to consider their representation and pass reasoned and speaking order thereon. Pursuant thereof, DIOS passed an order on 17 March 1999, wherein, it is noted that petitioners have been appointed beyond the sanctioned strength but on humanitarian ground their candidature may be considered for absorption as and when vacancies on Class IV post arise in the institution. Despite the said order of the DIOS, salary of the petitioners was not released. Aggrieved, they again approached this Court by filing a petition bearing Writ Petition No. 22161 of 2000 (Devendra Kumar Sharma and others v. Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Allahabad and others), wherein, an order came to be passed on 25 May 2000 directing DIOS to pay salary to the petitioners or to show-cause within a month. Thereafter, DIOS passed an order on 22 April 2006, whereby, all the petitioners were absorbed/adjusted against substantive vacancies that fell vacant in the institution between 1 April 2002 to 1 June 2004. The tabular portion of the order is extracted:

،	uke	fu;qfDr frfFk	fjfDr dk dkj.k vkSj fjfDr dh frfFk	lek;kstu dh frfFk
1	Jh eUujkt flag	01-07-96	Jh dqUnu yky 31-03-02 dks lsok fuo`Rr	01-04-02
2	Jh nsosUnz dqekj 'kekZ	01-07-96	Jh Nsnh yky 30-06-02 dks lsok fuo`Rr	01-07-02
3	Jh jfoUnz flag oekZ	01-07-96	Jh jkt flag 31-07-02 dks lsok fuo`Rr	01-08-02
4	Jh fuekZunRr	01-07-96	Jh xqjok 31-05-04 dks lsok fuo`Rr	01-06-04
5	Jh 'kSysUnz nhf{kr	01-07-96	Jh lR;ohj flag 31-05-04 dks lsok fuo`Rr	01-06-02

4. It is, therefore, clear that petitioners were appointed in 1996 not against substantive vacancies but were subsequently adjusted after a lapse of ten years against substantive posts that had fallen vacant between 2002-2004. It appears that pursuant to the order of the DIOS, salary of the petitioners was released from 1998. Consequently, petitioners withdrew their petition (Writ Petition No. 22161 of 2000) on 3 August 2006.

5. Thereafter, it appears that upon completion of five years of service, one of the petitioner again approached this Court by filing a petition bearing Writ Petition No. 59026 of 2006 (Devendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and others), seeking a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Clerk. This Court vide order dated 28 October 2006 noticing the illegal appointment declined to grant any relief to the petitioner, rather, directed that the salary being paid to the petitioners be stopped forthwith. The operative portion is extracted:

“In the opinion of the