JUDGMENT Honble Ashok Bhushan, J.—These two writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of finally by this common order. 2. Heard Shri R.K. Jain, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Shri A.K. Sinha appearing for the Committee of Management as well as newly impleaded respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel. Shri Ramendra Asthana has also appeared for one of the respondents. 3. Writ Petition No. 32062 of 1991 (hereinafter referred to as first writ petition) has been filed praying for writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 4.3.1991 passed by the District Inspector of Schools by which the District Inspector of Schools has communicated that his earlier letter dated 22.9.1990 shall be effective with effect from 22.9.1990. A writ of mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner as Lecturer grade from 14.2.1983 to 22.9.1990. Further a mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents to place the petitioner in seniority list according to the position of 14.2.1983. 4. By Writ Petition No. 38816 of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the second writ petition) the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 29.10.1998 passed by District Inspector of Schools by which the pay fixation of the petitioner in the Lecturer’s grade has been stayed till the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4.3.1991 is finally decided by this Court. 5. Brief facts necessary for deciding both the writ petitions are : R.R. Inter College, Pilakuwa is a recognised institution under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The petitioner, Mahesh Chandra Sharma, was appointed in L.T. grade in the year 1973. The petitioner’s case is that he was recommended to be promoted as Lecturer (Hindi) vide resolution dated 11.8.1982. The District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 14.2.1983 approved the ad hoc promotion of the petitioner as Lecturer, which order was subsequently stayed vide letter dated 16.2.1983. Another Teacher Jagdish Prasad Sharma was working as Lecturer Sanskrit since 1974. On the request of the Management the Deputy Director of Education created another post of Hindi Lecturer vide his letter dated 23.12.1979. The Management sent a resolution to the District Inspector of Schools for changing the post of Lecturer Hindi as Lecturer Sanskrit. Another Teacher Jagdish Prasad Sharma was working as Lecturer Sanskrit since 1974. On the request of the Management the Deputy Director of Education created another post of Hindi Lecturer vide his letter dated 23.12.1979. The Management sent a resolution to the District Inspector of Schools for changing the post of Lecturer Hindi as Lecturer Sanskrit. The District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 21.7.1980 approved the proposal of the Management to convert the post into Lecturer Sanskrit from Lecturer Hindi. The order dated 21.7.1980 was subsequently cancelled vide his subsequent letter dated 8.10.1980. By the letter dated 8.10.1980 the District Inspector of Schools asked the Management to submit certain informations with regard to examining the case of petitioner for promotion. Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma filed a suit in the Civil Court being Suit No. 488 of 1980 for declaring order dated 8.10.1980 as void and inoperative. The Civil Court also granted a temporary injunction in the said suit. Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma subsequently retired on 30.6.1990 and after his retirement the Civil Suit was dismissed on 11.12.1990 by IIIrd Additional Munsif. It is also relevant to note that in the said suit the petitioner, Mahesh Chandra Sharma prayed for his impleadment as one of the defendant which application was rejected by the trial Court. Before dismissal of the suit the District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 22.9.1990 by which the earlier order dated 16.2.1983 staying the effect of order dated 14.2.1983 was withdrawn. Subsequently, the District Inspector of Schools issued another letter on 14.3.1991 communicating that letter dated 22.9.1990 shall be effective from 22.9.1990. The first writ petition has been filed challenging the said order. After the above order of the Inspector the petitioner’s salary was fixed in the Lecturer grade which fixation was subsequently stayed vide its letter dated 29.10.1998. On the basis of the letter of the Inspector dated 22.9.1990 the pay fixation of the petitioner with effect from 14.2.1983 vide letter dated 4.3.1991 was said to be automatically cancelled and the pay fixation of the petitioner was stayed till the writ petition against the order dated 4.3.1991 is decided. The letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 29.10.1998 has been challenged in the second writ petition. 6. Shri R.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was entitled to be treated in Lecturer grade with effect from 14.2.1983. The letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 29.10.1998 has been challenged in the second writ petition. 6. Shri R.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was entitled to be treated in Lecturer grade with effect from 14.2.1983. He submitted that Jagdish Prasad Sharma was Lecturer in Sanskrit and the new post was the post created of Lecturer in Hindi. Neither the District Inspector of Schools nor the Committee of Management had any jurisdiction to convert the said post as post of Lecturer Sanskrit. He further contended that the suit filed by Jagdish Prasad having been ultimately dismissed, the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 21.10.1980 has to be pronounced as valid order and the promotion of the petitioner to be treated continuous from 14.2.1983. He further submits that petitioner had worked as Lecturer Hindi, hence he was entitled for arrears of salary. It is further submitted by Shri R.K. Jain that petitioner’s ad hoc promotion as Lecturer Hindi has been treated to be substantive with effect from 6.4.1991 by virtue of Section 33-A of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. Shri Jain submits that petitioner’s pay fixation in the Lecturer grade was correctly done and the subsequent letter of the Inspector dated 29.10.1998 is wholly erroneous and liable to be set aside. 7. Shri A.K. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Management as well as newly impleaded respondent contended that Jagdish Prasad Sharma functioned till 30.6.1990 on the post of Lecturer Hindi which was newly created in 1979 and was paid his salary as Lecturer Hindi, hence there is no question of payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner of Lecturer Hindi. He further contends that the seniority of newly impleaded respondent may be affected by decision of the writ petition, hence petitioner’s promotion cannot be treated from 14.2.1983 even on ad hoc basis. 8. The learned Standing Counsel has also submitted that Jagdish Prasad Sharma having held the post till 30.6.1990, petitioner cannot claim his salary as Lecturer Hindi and there is no error in the order of the Inspector dated 3.6.1991 as well as 29.10.1998. 9. I have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. There is no dispute that Jagdish Prasad Sharma was working as Lecturer Sanskrit since before creation of the second post of Lecturer Hindi in 1979. 9. I have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. There is no dispute that Jagdish Prasad Sharma was working as Lecturer Sanskrit since before creation of the second post of Lecturer Hindi in 1979. The second post of Lecturer Hindi was created by Deputy Director of Education vide his letter dated 23.12.1979. The Management has submitted some resolution on 4.5.1980 proposing to convert the newly created post of lecturer Hindi into Lecturer Hindi, Sanskrit. The said proposal was earlier approved by District Inspector of Schools on 21.7.1980 but by a subsequent order dated 8.10.1980 the said approval was recalled. A suit was filed by Jagdish Prasad Sharma in which an interim injunction was granted in the year 1981 which suit remain pending and was subsequently dismissed on 11.12.1990 after retirement of Jagdish Prasad Sharma. 11. The consequence of dismissal of the suit filed by Jagdish Prasad Sharma against the letter of the Inspector dated 8.10.1980 was that letter dated 8.10.1980 remains intact and operative. Further the post creation is made by Director of Education in exercise of power under Section 9 of U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. At the relevant time the said power was delegated to the Deputy Director of Education. The post created by Deputy Director of Education was the post of Lecturer Hindi as is clear from the letter of District Inspector of Schools dated 8.10.1980. When the post created was the post of Lecturer Hindi, there was no power in the Management or in the District Inspector of Schools to convert the said post from Hindi to Hindi, Sanskrit. Conversion, if any could have been possible only by the Deputy Director of Education. The District Inspector of Schools has earlier granted permission on 21.7.1980 for conversion of the post from Hindi to Hindi, Sanskrit which was subsequently cancelled by him on 8.10.1980. The order dated 8.10.1980 of the District Inspector of Schools was perfectly justified, in the said order it was mentioned, that Jagdish Prasad Sharma shall be treated as Lecturer Sanskrit. The consequence of the order dated 8.10.1980 was that Jagdish Prasad Sharma was treated as Lecturer Sanskrit. The order dated 8.10.1980 of the District Inspector of Schools was perfectly justified, in the said order it was mentioned, that Jagdish Prasad Sharma shall be treated as Lecturer Sanskrit. The consequence of the order dated 8.10.1980 was that Jagdish Prasad Sharma was treated as Lecturer Sanskrit. As noted above Jagdish Prasad Sharma was working as lecturer Sanskrit since 1974, thus, it is not a case of fresh appointment of Jagdish Prasad Sharma in the year 1980 when the second post of Hindi Lecturer was created. The District Inspector of Schools has approved the ad hoc promotion of petitioner as Lecturer Hindi on 14.2.1983 although the said order was stayed on 16.2.1980 but subsequently the order dated 16.2.1980 has been recalled. 12. In view of the ultimate dismissal of the suit the impediment if any in the functioning of the petitioner as Lecturer Hindi came to an end and in the counter-affidavit filed by the District Inspector of Schools as well as the Committee of Management, no objection has been raised with regard to functioning with effect from 22.9.1990. Admittedly, the petitioner is being paid salary as Lecturer Hindi. The petitioner also claims to be regularised on the post of Lecturer Hindi by virtue of provision of Section 33-A of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. One of the submissions raised by Shri A.K. Sinha is that the decision of the writ petition may effect the seniority of newly impleaded respondent. It is made clear that in this writ petition no issue of seniority has been raised nor it is necessary to express any opinion with regard to seniority either of the petitioner or of the newly impleaded respondent. The question of seniority as and when raised shall be decided in accordance with law. 13. The Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the petitioner was paid the arrears of salary from 14.2.1980 to 22.9.1990 amounting to Rs. 2526/- but the same amount was subsequently deducted from the salary of the petitioner. Although Shri Jain has submitted that during the period 14.2.1983 to 22.9.1990 the petitioner has worked as Lecturer Hindi but there are no materials on the record to come to a definite conclusion as to whether petitioner has actually functioned as Lecturer Hindi or not. It is appropriate that the question of payment of arrears of salary during this period be decided by District Inspector of Schools. It is appropriate that the question of payment of arrears of salary during this period be decided by District Inspector of Schools. In event if the petitioner makes a detailed representation with regard to payment of arrears of salary within one month from today, the same may be considered and disposed of finally. It is made clear that the ad hoc approval of the petitioner from 14.2.1983 remains intact and for all other purposes he is to be treated as Lecturer Hindi with effect from 14.2.1983, petitioner having been treated as ad hoc Lecturer from 14.2.1983 till he is regularised as claimed by him. The petitioner is entitled to fixation of his salary in the Lecturer grade and the order dated 29.10.1998 staying the fixation of salary of petitioner in the Lecturer’s grade cannot be sustained. 14. In result, the order dated 3.6.1991 passed by District Inspector of Schools as well as the letter dated 29.10.1998 are quashed. The question of payment of arrears of salary shall be determined by the District Inspector of Schools as observed above. 15. Both the writ petitions are thus partly allowed. 16. Parties shall bear their own costs. Petition Partly Allowed. ————