For regularization under Section 33-B of the Act, 1982, the person should have been continuously serving the institution from the date of appointment up to the date of the commencement of the Act, and allowing regularization after termination of services would be against the earlier judgment.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This writ petition was filed on 12.02.2014 seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.1.2014 passed by the Joint Director Faizabad as opposite party no. 4 contained as annexure no 1 to the writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner joining on the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit, and pay him salary regularly.

(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization u/s 33-B of U.P.S.E.S. Section Board Act, 1982"

3. By means of the impugned order dated 15.01.2014 the claim of the petitioner for regularization under Section 33-B of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 was declined on the ground that for the purposes of consideration for regularization a person should have been appointed having a satisfactory service, whereas, the petitioner's services had been terminated on 30.06.1996, therefore, there was no occasion to regularize her services.

4. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on Ad-hoc basis on 04.09.1989 on the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit). One Shri Muneshwar Bux Verma claimed a right of consideration for promotion against the said post. He filed a writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No. 6960 (S/S) of 1988 which was decided on 09.09.1991, a copy of the said judgment is annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. On a perusal of the said judgment what comes out is that the appointment of the petitioner on Ad-hoc basis was held to be illegal and having been made ignoring the claim for promotion of Shri Muneshwar Bux Verma. The right claimed by the petitioner on the said post came to an end by the said judgment by which Shri Muneshwar Bus Verma claim for promotion against the same post was upheld by this Court. Against the said judgment dated 09.09.1991 a Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19525 of 1991 was filed which was dismissed on 07.12.1995. Consequently, the petitioner herein lost her claim to the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) on which she had been appointed on Ad-hoc basis. On 01.07.1996 her services were terminated as a consequence of the aforesaid proceedings. The said termination order is annexed as Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition.

5. This order was put to challenge by the petitioner by means of Writ Petition No. 3266 (S/S) of 1997 which was dismissed on 26.02.2013 on the ground that the matter having attained finality before the Supreme Court on dismissal of the petitioner's S.L.P. nothing survived for adjudication. The said judgment dated 26.02.2013 passed in the said writ petition was put to challenge by the petitioner in Special Appeal Defective No. 234 of 2013 wherein the argument of the appellant was that though initially appointed as Ad-hoc teacher, on completing the requirements of Section 33-B(a)(iii) of U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 she became eligible for being considered for regularization and that now there were two vacancies available in the college, therefore, her case can be taken up for regularization. The Division Bench noticed this submission in second paragraph of the judgment and thereafter disposed of the Appeal granting liberty to the appellant to submit appropriate application as per the prescribed procedure for consideration of her case by the Joint Director, Secondary Education within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving a copy of that order which would be considered on merit and appropriate orders shall be passed within a further period of four weeks. The order of the single Judge was modified to that extent. The Division Bench, though, ordered for consideration of the p