JUDGMENT Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—There is a college known as Jan Vijay Inter College, Kurhi Nangal, District Bagpat (the College). This is a Government aided recognised college, governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Regulations framed thereunder. The salaries of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the college are governed by the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the College in C.T. Grade on 5.8.1987 and his services were merged in L.T. Grade w.e.f. 5.8.1992 in terms of G. O. No. 32/9/15-7 dated 11.8.1989 after the C.T. Grade was declared as dying cadre w.e.f. May, 1989. It is further stated that in terms of the G.O. No. 3096/15-7-2004 {1}/2/15/2004 dated 24.5. 2004 the requisite qualifications and length of service for the purpose of merging the teachers of C. T. Grade into L.T. Grade was relaxed and reduced to the completion of five years of satisfactory service in the C.T. Grade. 3. The case of the petitioner further is that he was granted selection grade w.e.f. 5.8.2002 on the completion of ten years satisfactory service as Assistant Teacher in terms of the provisions of G.O.No. 4307/15-8-3030/99 dated 20.12.2001. However, his case is that granting of the benefit of selection grade was communicated to him vide letter dated 14.2.2005. 4. The case of the petitioner further is that upto the year 1984 there were only three posts of lecturer in the college namely, (1) the post of lecturer of History held by Sri Rajendra Pal Duhan, (2) the post of lecturer of Geography held by Sri Sukhpal Singh, (3) the post of lecturer of Sociology held by Sri Naunihal Singh. By an order dated 30.6.1984 passed by the Director (Education), Uttar Pradesh two posts of lecturer were created in the college namely (1) the post of lecturer in Sanskrit held by Sri Balraj Singh, (2) the post of lecturer (Economics) held by Sri Ram Narain Khokhar by way of promotion. 5. Sri Ram Narain Khokhar is stated to have proceeded on medical leave on 10.7.1997 resulting in a short term vacancy/leave vacancy. Against this short term vacancy, the respondent No. 6 Km. Renu Devi was appointed on ad hoc basis as lecturer (Economics). 5. Sri Ram Narain Khokhar is stated to have proceeded on medical leave on 10.7.1997 resulting in a short term vacancy/leave vacancy. Against this short term vacancy, the respondent No. 6 Km. Renu Devi was appointed on ad hoc basis as lecturer (Economics). It is further stated that the Committee of Management submitted the papers to the District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat for approval of appointment of Km. Renu Devi. The District Inspector of Schools, respondent No. 4 disapproved the appointment of Km. Renu Devi whereupon she filed Writ Petition No. 15330 of 1998. This writ petition was ultimately allowed by this Court by its order dated 30.11.2004 and the order of the District Inspector of Schools disapproving the ad hoc appointment of Km. Renu Singh was set aside and it was directed that Km. Renu Singh would be entitled to continue on the post until the same is filled up by ad hoc appointment under the procedure for filling up substantive vacancy or through the Secondary Education Service Commission, whichever is earlier. She would also be entitled for payment of salary from the date she assumes charge, if she is teaching in the College. 6. Sri Ram Narain Khokhar is stated to have retired on 30.6.1998 whereupon the vacancy became substantive and is to be filled up by promotion under the 50% promotee quota. The petitioner submitted an application on 9.7.1998 to the Committee of Management, respondent No. 5 praying that he may be considered for promotion on the post of lecturer (Economics). His case is that no orders were passed on the aforesaid application of the petitioner and, therefore, he had no other remedy except approaching this Court by filing the writ petition. 7. Heard Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.N. Rai, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 and learned standing for other respondents. 8. From the papers on record, the facts, which emerge, are that a short term vacancy in the post of lecturer (Economics) occurred on 10.7.1997. Km.Renu Devi was appointed in the short term vacancy but her appointment was not approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat whereupon she filed Writ Petition No. 15330 of 1998. 8. From the papers on record, the facts, which emerge, are that a short term vacancy in the post of lecturer (Economics) occurred on 10.7.1997. Km.Renu Devi was appointed in the short term vacancy but her appointment was not approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat whereupon she filed Writ Petition No. 15330 of 1998. The High Court by its order dated 30.11.2004 allowed the writ petition and held that Km.Renu Devi would be entitled to continue on the post until the substantive vacancy arose or the post was filled by the Secondary Education Commission, whichever is earlier. It is not disputed between the parties that Sri Ram Narain Khokhar, the substantive holder of the post of lecturer (Economics) retired on 30.6.1998. 9. In the counter-affidavit filed by learned standing counsel it is stated that when the substantive vacancy arose on the post of lecturer (Economics) on the retirement of Sri Ram Narain Khokhar, a regular candidate/lecturer on the post of lecturer (Economics) was selected by the Commission which was duly notified by the District Inspector of Schools. In pursuance of the said selection one Brij Gopal (scheduled caste candidate) whose name was sent by the Commission was directed to be appointed. Against this order Km.Renu Devi filed writ petition No. 52433 of 2005 in which interim order was passed on 8.8.2005 directing the parties to maintain status quo for the post of lecturer (Economics). The operative part of the order of this Court reads as follows : “Till the next date of list status quo qua the post of lecturer in economics as it exists today, be maintained.” On the basis of this interim order the respondent No. 6 is stated to be continued on the post till date. It is also stated that against the final order passed by this Court on 30.11.2004 in Writ Petition No. 15330 of 1998, Km. Renu Devi v. District Inspector of Schools, a Special Appeal No. 253 of 2005 has been filed by the District Inspector of Schools, which is stated to be still pending. 10. According to learned standing counsel, there are five posts of lecturer sanctioned by the department in the College and at present the senior-most lecturer Sri Sukhpal Singh is working as ad hoc Principal. Km. 10. According to learned standing counsel, there are five posts of lecturer sanctioned by the department in the College and at present the senior-most lecturer Sri Sukhpal Singh is working as ad hoc Principal. Km. Renu Devi, respondent No. 6 is also working on the post of lecturer on the post vacated by Sri Sukhpal Singh, and, therefore, there is no vacancy available for promotion of the petitioner. 11. Sri A.N. Rai in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Km.Renu Devi has raised an objection that the petitioner was granted L.T. Grade salary w.e.f. 19.2.2002 and his service was regularised in the C.T. Grade by order dated 2.1.1995 and as such the initial appointment of the petitioner itself was illegal. He could not be said to be working in the L.T. Grade w.e.f. 16.10.2004 as he had not completed five years in L.T. Grade. 12. The said argument is fallacious and has no legs to stand. The clear cut case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the college in C. T. Grade on 5.8.1987 and when the said grade was declared to be a dying cadre by G.O. dated 11.8.1989, the C.T. Grade was merged in the L. T. Grade w.e.f 5.8.1992 by relaxing and reducing the requisite qualification and length of service and granting benefit of L.T. Grade to those teachers of C. T. Grade, who had completed five years of satisfactory service. As such there is no error in granting L. T. Grade to the petitioner w.e.f. 1992. 13. On behalf of the petitioner a ground has been taken that the very appointment of Km.Renu in the college was illegal inasmuch as she was the daughter of Sri Tej Pal Singh, Vice-Chairman of the Committee of Management and, therefore, by virtue of provisions of Section 16 GG, sub-section 3, clause-b, she could not have been appointed being related to a member of the Committee of Management and, therefore, her appointment was ab anitio void. The relevant provisions of 16GG(3)(b) read as follows : “16-GG (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to— (a)....................... (b) substantive appointment if such teacher was related to any member of the Committee of Management or the Principal or Headmaster of the institution concerned.” 14. The relevant provisions of 16GG(3)(b) read as follows : “16-GG (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to— (a)....................... (b) substantive appointment if such teacher was related to any member of the Committee of Management or the Principal or Headmaster of the institution concerned.” 14. The averment in this regard has been made in paras 11,12 and 26 of the writ petition. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Km.Renu sworn by one Yashpal Singh s/o Randheer Singh who stated to be working in the College, in question, as Pairokar of respondent No. 6. Para 10 which is in respect of paras 11 and 12 of the writ petition reads as follows : “10. That the contents of paragraphs 11 and 12 of the writ petition are not admitted hence denied.” Para 23 of the said counter-affidavit which is in respect of para 26 of the writ petition reads as follows : “23. That the content of paragraph 26 of the writ petition is not admitted hence denied.” 15. These are only bald denials with no further explanation regarding the parentage of Km.Renu Devi, who has been impleaded by name as respondent No. 6 and it was expected that if there are any allegations with regard to her appointment, the affidavit in denial of those allegations would be sworn by Km.Renu Devi herself by filing her own affidavit. On the other hand, the counter-affidavit of Km. Renu Devi has been sworn by one Yashpal Singh, who is stated to be working in the College in question as Pairokar. It is not disclosed as to what is the relationship between Yashpal Singh and Km.Renu Devi and why Renu Devi could not file her own personal affidavit. The only inference which therefore can be drawn is that Km.Renu Devi deliberately avoided filing her personal affidavit so that she may not have to disclose her parentage. Thus filing of an affidavit of Sri Yashpal is a deliberate fraud upon this Court and a deliberate attempt to mislead this Court. The only inference which therefore can be drawn is that Km.Renu Devi deliberately avoided filing her personal affidavit so that she may not have to disclose her parentage. Thus filing of an affidavit of Sri Yashpal is a deliberate fraud upon this Court and a deliberate attempt to mislead this Court. This creates a doubt that Km.Renu Devi deliberately avoided to file her own affidavit so that she may not disclose the fact that she is the daughter of Tej Pal Singh, who is the Vice-Chairman of the Committee of Management, thus rendering her appointment ab initio void by virtue of provisions of Section 16 GG(3) (b) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 16. Sri A.N. Rai submitted that since there was a direction given by the High Court in the order dated 30.11.2004, Km.Renu Devi was entitled to continue in service on the post of lecturer and to receive salary. This submission has been countered by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner was never employed in the said college and moreover Km.Renu Devi did not disclose her relationship that she is the daughter of the Vice-Chairman, Committee of Management which would have rendered her appointment ab initio void. If these facts had been brought in the knowledge of the Court in the writ petition No. 15330 of 1998 the directions contained in the order dated 30.11.2004 would not have been passed by the Court. Sri Seemant Singh submits that Km.Renu Devi has not only committed fraud upon this Courtýÿ in theýÿ present writ petition but also deceived and misled the earlier writ Court into passing the order dated 30.11.2004. In paragraph-7 of the writ petition the clear cut case of the petitioner is that the post vacated by Sri Ram Narain Khokhar upon his retirement was to be filled up from 50% promottee quota as per Rule and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion against the said post. In para-4 of the counter-affidavit filed by learned standing counsel it is stated that the contents of paras 3 to 9 of the writ petition are matter of record and need no comment. In para-4 of the counter-affidavit filed by learned standing counsel it is stated that the contents of paras 3 to 9 of the writ petition are matter of record and need no comment. Further in same paragraph No. 4, it is stated on behalf of the State that the petitioner has no claim to seek promotion inasmuch as the entire matter is still to be adjudicated by the Court in the pending Writ Petition No. 52433 of 2005 against the post upon which the petitioner is claiming his promotion and which is already occupied by the aforesaid Km. Renu Devi pursuant to the order of this Court. Relevant extract of paragraph No. 4 of the counter-affidavit of the State reads as follows : “The petitioner has claimed his promotion whereas entire matter is still to be adjudicated upon by this Hon’ble Court in pending Writ Petition No. 52433 of 2005 and against the post upon which the petitioner is claiming his promotion, is already occupied by aforesaid Km.Renu Devi pursuant to order of this Hon’ble Court.” 17. In the writ petition the petitioner has filed requisition for appointment against the various posts (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) and in paragraph-5 of the said requisition the post of lecturer (Economics) has been shown as a vacancy to be filled up by way of promotion. 18. From the consideration of the facts noted above as well as submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the post vacated by Sri Ram Narain Khokhar upon his retirement on 30.6.1998 was a post required to be filled up by way of promotion under 50% promotee quota. So far as the claim of Km. Renu Devi, respondent No. 6 is concerned, she being the daughter of Sri Tej Pal Singh, who is Vice Chairman of the Committee of Management, her appointment is ab inito void by virtue of the application of the provisions of 16 GG (3) (b) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. So far as the claim of Km. Renu Devi, respondent No. 6 is concerned, she being the daughter of Sri Tej Pal Singh, who is Vice Chairman of the Committee of Management, her appointment is ab inito void by virtue of the application of the provisions of 16 GG (3) (b) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. So far as the directions contained in the order dated 30.11.2004 of this Court are concerned, in view of the above findings, the said order has been obtained by Km.Renu Devi, respondent No. 6 by misleading the Court and without disclosing the fact that she is the daughter of the Vice Chairman of the Committee of Management in which case her appointment itself would be ab inito void and therefore, the order dated 30.11.2004 obtained by Km. Renu Devi playing fraud upon the Court which cannot confer any benefit upon Km. Renu Deiv, respondent No. 6 to retain the said post or claim any salary of that post in future.. 19. In view of the above, the writ petition No. 15151 of 2007 (Kushalveer Singh v. State of U.P. and others) is allowed. 20. A direction is issued to respondent No. 5 to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion on the post of lecturer (Economics) within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received by him. The question whether the petitioner has worked for any period on the post of lecturer in the interim and whether he is entitled for salary for that period will also be considered by the Committee of Management. 21. A further direction is given that since they very appointment of Km. Renu Devi has been held to be invalid in view of the specific provisions of Section 16 GG (3) (b) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, steps be taken by the District Inspector of Schools Baghpat, to give a show-cause notice to Km.Renu Devi within 15 days from date of receipt of certified copy of this order and after considering her explanation and giving her an opportunity of being heard, pass appropriate orders within a further 15 days thereafter. 22. 22. So far as the Writ Petition 52433 of 2005 is concerned, the said writ petition was filed by Km.Renu Devi for quashing the order dated 24.6.2005 passed by the District Inspector of Schools giving effect to the appointment of the candidate selected by the U.P. Secondary Education Commission. In the said writ petition though in the array of the parties she has disclosed her parentage as daughter of Sri Tej Pal Singh but in the body of the petition she has nowhere disclosed that the said Sri Tej Pal Singh is the Vice Chairman of the Committee of Management, which is a 3rd attempt of fraud, played by said Km. Renu Devi upon this Court. The Supreme Court in the cases in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449 (para 33); K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India, (2008) 12 SCC 481 (paras 38 and 39); has held that if the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses material facts or otherwise tries to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the matter without adjudicating the same. Therefore, Writ Petition No. 52433 of 2005 (Km. Renu Devi v. State of U.P. and others) stands dismissed on this ground alone. 23. So far as the Writ Petition Nos. 70638 of 2005 (Brij Gopal v. State of U.P. and others) and 55221 of 2006 (Brij Gopal v. State of U.P. and others) filed by Brij Gopal are concerned, rights claimed by the petitioner therein flow from his selection by the Commission and, therefore, the same has absolutely no bearing so far as the rights of the petitioner Kushalveer Singh to be considered for promotion in the promottee quota on the post of lecturer (Economics) is concerned. The said two writ petitions, therefore, will be detached from the above two writ petitions and shall be listed for admission in the next cause list.. ———————