Along with :

1. Writ - A No. 54643 of 2017:

Arvind Kumar Shukla and another

Versus

District Inspector of Schools Jaunpur and 4 others

2. Writ - A No. 57723 of 2016:

Pawan Kumar Tiwari

Versus

State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Court No. - 32

1. Heard Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents in all writ petitions.

2. This is a bunch of three writ petitions.

3. Writ A No. 20927/1999 was filed by three petitioners, viz. Arvind Kumar Shukla, Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Ramesh Chandra Yadav against orders dated 12.02.1999 and 16.02.1999 passed by D.I.O.S. concerned whereby their respective appointments were cancelled.

4. In Writ A No. 20927/1999, following interim order was passed on 24.05.1999 :-

"Learned standing counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2 prays for and is granted four weeks' time for filing counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within another one week.

List the petition for admission in week commencing 30th August, 1999.

The petitioners are directed to serve respondent no. 3 and 4 by registered post A/D for which step is to be taken within a week. Respondents nos. 3 and 4 may also file a counter affidavit, if any, within the aforesaid period of four weeks.

In view of the contention made that no opportunity was granted to petitioners before passing the impugned orders, operation of the impugned orders dated 12.02.1999 and 16.02.1999 passed by the respondent-1 at annexures 14 and 15 of the writ petition will remain stayed until further orders."

5. According to learned counsel for petitioners, petitioners have claimed that they have worked on basis of aforesaid interim order though learned counsel for respondent - Committee of Management has objected said submission.

6. On basis of documents available on record, it appears that petitioners have worked till 2010. Subsequently, there is no document that they have been paid salary.

7. Writ A No. 57723/2016 was filed by one Pawan Kumar Tiwari that his salary be released in pursuance of order dated 21.01.2015 passed by concerned D.I.O.S. in pursuance of directions passed by this Court in other writ petition. From perusal of contents of writ petition, it appears that no salary was paid to petitioner after September, 2009 and this writ petition remained pending without any interim order.

8. Subsequently, State-respondent has passed an order dated 03.10.2017 whereby appointment of petitioners viz. Arvind Kumar Shukla and Pawan Kumar Tiwari were terminated. Said order was challenged by way of filing Writ A No. 54643/2017 and admittedly, there is no interim order.

9. In aforesaid circumstances, outcome of Writ A Nos. 20927/1999 and 57723/2016 would depend upon outcome of Writ A No. 54643/2017.

10. Court takes note that petitioners have not worked undisputedly after 2010.

11. Argument of learned counsel for petitioners is that once an order of termination was stayed and writ petition was pending, no subsequent order can be passed terminating services of petitioners without taking note of it and it being an ex-parte order, is contrary to law also.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for Committee of Management submits that initial appointment was contrary to law since in a writ petition filed by one Vinod Kumar Yadav, there was a ban to initiate any new appointment though said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous in 2014 as well as he also submits that in the impugned order, it is mentioned that no post was available.

13. I have considered above submissions and perused the records.

14. Interim order passed in writ petition of year 1999 was implemented till 2010. Subsequently, it was not implemented and petitioners have never come up before this Court that same be implemented and since subsequent order of cancellation of appointment is entirely on different basis, therefore, on such ground, impugned order does not find to be faulty.

15. Now Court takes note of consideration in impugned order dated 27.09.2017 w