JUDGMENT : - Rakesh Tiwari 1. HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 14.5.1992 passed by the Secretary, Rana Shiksha Shivir Inter College, Dhaulana, Ghaziabad and have claimed following reliefs : (i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.5.1992 passed by the Secretary, Rana Shiksha Shivir Inter College, Dhaulana, Ghaziabad ; (ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the function of petitioner No. 1 as lecturer in Hindi, petitioner No. 2 as lecturer in Sanskrit and petitioner No. 3 as assistant teacher in L.T. grade in Rana Shiksha Shivir Inter College, Dhaulana, Ghaziabad and to pay the petitioners their regular monthly salary on the posts respectively held by them including their arrears of salary from 9.4.1991 till date ; (iii) Any other writ, order or direction as the petitioners be entitled in law. The petitioners state that they have been legally and validly appointed as lecturers and assistant teacher in Rana Shiksha Shivir Inter College, Dhaulana, Ghaziabad, which is a recognized and aided institution. It is alleged that the following three substantive vacancies came into existence : (1) On account of superannuation from service of Sri Gopi Chand Shastri permanent lecturer in Hindi on 30.6.1982. (2) On account of superannuation from service of Sri Trilok Chand Sharma permanent lecturer in Sanskrit on 30.6.1983. (3) On account of superannuation from service of Sri Bhudev Singh Verma, permanent assistant teacher in L.T. grade on 30.6.1987. 3. THE aforesaid posts were notified to the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission for being filled up by regular selection in the month of August/September, 1990, but no regular selection had taken place. A notice had been issued on 25.3.1991 for making ad hoc appointments against the substantive vacancies in the college. THE petitioners being eligible had applied for the posts and were selected in the selection held by the Committee of Management on 7.4.1991. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as ad hoc lecturer in Hindi, petitioner No. 2 was appointed as ad hoc lecturer in Sanskrit and petitioner No. 3 was appointment as ad hoc assistant teacher in L.T. grade in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Committee of Management dated 7.4.1991. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as ad hoc lecturer in Hindi, petitioner No. 2 was appointed as ad hoc lecturer in Sanskrit and petitioner No. 3 was appointment as ad hoc assistant teacher in L.T. grade in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Committee of Management dated 7.4.1991. They joined the institution on 9.4.1991 on their respective posts and that they are still working in the institution. 4. THE grievance of the petitioners is that the papers pertaining to their ad hoc appointments submitted by the Management in the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad, along with covering letter dated 10.4.1991 are still pending and no order has been passed by him inspite of repeated representations and reminders. Hence, their services have been terminated by the Secretary of the College vide order dated 14.5.1992, which is appended as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The petitioners contend that the impugned order was passed by the Secretary of the College against all cannons of natural justice without affording any opportunity of hearing to them in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. They further contended that there is no provision in U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 or any law which may require any approval either prior or subsequent to making ad hoc appointments under Section 18 of the aforesaid Act. It is submitted that the view taken by the authority is illegal and contrary to law and their termination is liable to be set aside and they are entitled to continue in service. 5. BY an order dated 16.6.1992, this Court had stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 14.5.1992 and by order dated 1.2.1993 directed that the petitioners will be paid salary regularly on the posts on which they are working. 6. THE petitioners moved an affidavit along with an application bringing on record of the case that the District Inspector of Schools had passed an order on 9.12.1994 granting approval to the appointments. This order has been appended as Annexure-1 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that after the approval was granted, the petitioners are receiving the salary regularly w.e.f. 1994. This order has been appended as Annexure-1 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that after the approval was granted, the petitioners are receiving the salary regularly w.e.f. 1994. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the amendment in U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, by which Section 33C of the Act was inserted, inter alia, provided that all those teachers, who were appointed prior to 5.8.1993, would be considered for regularization. It is contended that on this basis the case of the petitioners falls within purview of Section 33C of the aforesaid Act of 1982 and they are entitled to be considered for regularization. They have also approached the D.I.O.S. through representations dated 14.8.2001 and 10.1.2002. These representations have also been appended as Annexures-2 and 3 to the affidavit. 7. APART from above, it appears from the record that one Jagdish Prasad also had moved an application for impleadment as respondent No. 4 in the writ petition on the ground that he is senior most teacher in the college in L.T. grade and is teaching the students of classes-XI and XII since July, 1983, i.e., when the vacancy in the college had occurred for the post of Lecturer in Hindi on the retirement of Sri Gopi Chand Shastri. It is alleged in the application that when the Management appointed Sri M.C. Sharma, he filed Writ Petition No. 27805 of 1992, Jagdish Prasad v. Committee of Management, Rana Shiksha Shivir Inter College, Dhaulana, Ghaziabad and others, in which this Court had passed the following order on 4.8.1992 : "In the meantime, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are restrained from making any payment to respondent No. 3 till further orders." 8. FROM the age declared by Jagdish Prasad in the affidavit, it is borne out that he was aged about 54 years in 1993 when he had filed the application for his impleadment as respondent No. 4. He has retired by now. In case he claims any right, he can challenge the same in the writ petition filed by him. So far as the present writ petition is concerned, this Court has passed the order dated 1.2.1993 for payment of salary to the petitioners and the D.I.O.S. in pursuance also thereof granted approval to their appointments and they are being paid their salary regularly. 9. So far as the present writ petition is concerned, this Court has passed the order dated 1.2.1993 for payment of salary to the petitioners and the D.I.O.S. in pursuance also thereof granted approval to their appointments and they are being paid their salary regularly. 9. THUS the order of termination dated 14.5.1992 stands superseded by the order of the D.I.O.S. dated 9.12.1994. 10. FOR the reasons stated above, the order dated 14.5.1992 passed by the Secretary, Rana Shiksha Shivir Inter College, Dhaulana, Ghaziabad, is quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to all the benefits of service from their respective date of appointments in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally. No orders as to costs.