The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher was made against a substantive vacancy, entitling the petitioner to regularization under Section 33-B of the U.P. Secondary Education Selection and Service Board Act 1982.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. As per the office report dated 9th April, 2016 neither registered envelop nor, acknowledgement sent by the registered post to the respondent No.-5 has been received back.

3. In the circumstances, therefore, service of notice upon respondent No. 5 is deemed sufficient and the Court now proceeds to decide the matter.

4. The petitioner before this Court was selected and appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in LT grade on 26th April, 1992 by the Committee of Management against a substantive vacancy which had fallen vacant on account of selection and appointment of the then Principal of the institution, namely, Jagat Pal Singh in the year 1986. The papers after selection was forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, however he did not accord any financial approval forcing to the petitioner to file writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.-6623 of 1993 in which certain directions were issued on 15th April, 1993. While the matter remained pending before this Court, the District Inspector of Schools accorded financial approval to the petitioner's appointment vide order dated 5th July, 1995 and so according to the petitioner, the writ petition had got rendered infructuous and so was dismissed on 20th July, 2010.

5. It transpires from the pleadings that the petitioner's salary was paid till 1998 only and so consequently another writ petition being Writ Petition No.-50664 of 2000 was filed in which direction was issued on 24th November, 2000 commanding the authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate order thereupon. The Finance and Accounts Officer passed an order on 18th June, 2003 rejecting the representation of the petitioner filed for the purposes of payment of salary virtually questioning the appointment of the petitioner more especially on the ground of ban on the appointments in such institution. The petitioner again approached this Court vide writ petition No. 3657 of 2003 which was allowed and the order passed by the Finance and Accounts Officer dated 8th June, 2003 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the respondent No.-2, namely, the Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. Lucknow to pass appropriate detailed order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

6. The Director of Education again rejected the claim of the petitioner vide detailed order dated 31st December, 2008 taking a ground that prior permission was not taken from the competent authority in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada and another v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and others, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551 and that the post was fraudulently taken to be vacant.

7. The basic ground, therefore was taken that there was no post in existence upon which the petitioner could have been appointed. This order dated 31st December, 2008 came to be challenged again vide writ petition being Writ - A No.-22809 of 2009, in which both these grounds were held to be untenable, firstly for the reason that in the Full Bench judgment in Radha Raizada it was made only prospective in its application and hence Committee of Management was fully empowered to make appointment; and secondly no prior permission to fill up the vacancy was required. The judgment had been delivered on 15th July, 1994 and the appointment of the petitioner had taken place way back in the year 1992, and so it was held not applicable in the light of the directions issued by the Full Bench itself. Further more relying upon the judgment of Ashika Prasad Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and others, 1998 (3) UPLBEC 1722, the point canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner was that even notice board notification of vacancy was sufficient, was uph