JUDGMENT Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. 1. Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute of regularisation of the respondent no. 5 is still pending before the respondent no. 2, therefore, the impugned order dated 23rd June, 2015 could not have been passed by the respondent no. 4 directing the petitioner to submit clear report within three days to give promotional pay-scale to the respondent no.5. 3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the issue with regard to regularisation of the respondent no. 5 is concluded by the judgment of this Court dated 1st December, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 53992 of 2009 (Jagmohan Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others) . Thereafter in consequence to the directions given in the said judgment, the question interse seniority of the petitioner and three others was decided by the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur by order dated 27th January, 2010. The petitioners have not challenged both the orders. He, therefore, submits that the petitioners have no case at all to pray for the relief as sought in the writ petition. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 5. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that undispuatedly the respondent no. 5 was considered by the Selection Committee and was regulairsed by order dated 21st December, 1994. 6. After a lapse of about fifteen years the order of regularisation was reviewed by the Regional Joint Director of Education and an order dated 24th September, 2009 was passed cancelling the regularisation. 7. Aggrieved with this order of review as well as the order dated 6th October, 2009 determining the seniority between the respondent no. 5 herein and two others, the respondent no. 5 herein filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.53992 of 2009 which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 1st December, 2009 as under : - "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the question that arises for determination is as to whether the petitioner could have been regularised or not. 5 herein and two others, the respondent no. 5 herein filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.53992 of 2009 which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 1st December, 2009 as under : - "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the question that arises for determination is as to whether the petitioner could have been regularised or not. The petitioner was appointed in an ad hoc capacity and his regularisation could have been considered only in terms of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1993, which was enforced w.e.f. 7th August, 1993. The date of enforcement of the Act is therefore clear and the claim of the petitioner cannot precede the said date. Apart from this, the procedure provided under Section 33-B is amply clear, which narrates that each region there shall be a Selection Committee and the claim for a person for regularisation shall be processed by the said Selection Committee where after the appointment will be offered in a substantive capacity. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the petitioner was considered by the Selection Committee and the said consideration crystallized into the order dated 21.12.1994. Accordingly, he petitioner cannot claim any substantive appointment prior to 21.12.1994. This Court is therefore of the opinion that the petitioner stood regularised under the order dated 21.12.1994. The impugned order dated 24.09.2009 proceeds on the presumption that the petitioner could not have been regularised as the post against which he had been appointed on ad hoc basis became substantively vacant on 16.08.1994 upon the regularisation of Shri Man Mohan Singh Chaturvedi. The aforesaid reasoning does not appear to be correct in law, inasmuch as, Shri Man Mohan Singh was appointed on ad hoc basis as a Principal on 1st July, 1985. He was regularised in his services as a Principal and such regularisation is permissible in terms of Section 33-A(1-C). However, this Court need not go into that, inasmuch as, treating the post to have become vacant in the substantive capacity, the services of the petitioner have been regularised by the Authority on 21.12.1994 itself. There was no fraud or misrepresentation relating to the fact of claim of regularisation of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the Regional Joint Director of Education was not empowered to review the same, inasmuch as, it is only on the limited ground of fraud or misrepresentation that such review was permissible. There was no fraud or misrepresentation relating to the fact of claim of regularisation of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the Regional Joint Director of Education was not empowered to review the same, inasmuch as, it is only on the limited ground of fraud or misrepresentation that such review was permissible. The Court is supported in its view by two Division Bench decisions in the case of Havaldar Singh Vs. U.P. Shiksha Nideshak, VII Mandal, Gorakhpur and others 1976 AWC 123 and in the case of Radhey Shyam Chaube Vs. The District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and others 1978 AWC 40 . In the absence of any such jurisdiction to review the regularisation order of the petitioner, in my opinion, the impugned order is in excess of jurisdiction to that extent. The order dated 24.09.2009, insofar as, it annuls the regularisation of the petitioner cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The resolution of the Committee of Management to that effect is also set aside as the same Management itself had proposed the promotion of the petitioner and it therefore was estopped from reviewing its earlier decision. Even otherwise the Committee had no power to sit in appeal over the regularisation order passed by the authorities. Apart from this, once the petitioner was continuing, having been substantively appointed under Section 33-B of the 1982 Act, he could not have been removed by the Committee except on an approval by the Selection board under Section 21 of the 1982 Act or by an order of the Director of Education under Section 16-E(10) of the 1921 Act. In this view of the matter also, the Joint Director has travelled beyond the powers prescribed under the Statute as such the action is unsustainable on that score as well. The dispute relating to seniority between the petitioner and the respondent nos. 5 and 6 was sought to be agitated by the petitioner by questioning the regularisation of the said respondent nos. 5 and 6 as being against law. As a matter of fact, the petitioner who was sailing in the same boat, sought to dislodge the seniroty by questioning the regularisation of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and for this the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37282 of 2009, which was disposed of on 28th July, 2009. 5 and 6 as being against law. As a matter of fact, the petitioner who was sailing in the same boat, sought to dislodge the seniroty by questioning the regularisation of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and for this the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37282 of 2009, which was disposed of on 28th July, 2009. A copy of the said judgment has been filed as annexure 15 to the writ petition. The petitioner was given the liberty to ventilate his grievances through a representation before the Regional Joint Director of Education whereupon the said authority proceeded to examine the claim of the petitioner as well. Shri Ramesh Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the dispute of seniority required determination in the light of the fact that the regularisation of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 was illegal and consequently if their regularisation is found to be against law their claim to substantive appointment will fall through and the petitioner would automatically become senior. The said dispute relating to seniority has been decided by the authority under the order dated 06.10.2009, which has been challenged in the present petition through an amendment application, which was allowed on 21.10.2009. Learned counsel for the Committee of Management and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 have urged that it was not open to the petitioner to question the regularisation of the respondent nos. 5 and 6, inasmuch as, the Regional Joint Director of Education has no power to review the same as there was no fraud or misrepresentation and secondly even if the regularisation order was infirm on any count, then the same could have set aside only by the Director of Education under Section 16-E(10) or their removal could have been given effect to through an approval by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board. This argument need not detain this Court, inasmuch as, while considering the case of the petitioner on the question of regularisation herein above, it has been held that the Regional Joint Director of Education has no power to review the regularisation order of the petitioner, and as such, similarly on the same reasoning the said authority had no power to review the claim of regularisation of the respondent nos. 5 and 6, which was not obtained by any fraud or misrepresentation. The respondent no. 5 and 6, which was not obtained by any fraud or misrepresentation. The respondent no. 5 was appointed as a lecturer of Commerce on ad hoc basis, which was approved on 30.11.1988. The said approval was cancelled on 02.01.1990. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the claim of the respondent no. 5 was examined for regularisation and the same was extended in his favour vide order dated 27.10.1994. After the said regularisation order had been passed a statement was made on behalf of the said respondent in Writ Petition No. 1157 of 1990 that in view of the order of regularisation passed in his favour the writ petition be consigned to records. Taking notice of the said facts, this Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous on 28.09.2004. A copy of the said order has been brought on record through the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5. It is further evident that the respondent no. 5 stood regularised and the dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous was coupled by noticing the fact that the services had been regularised. In this view of the matter, the question of regularisation of the respondent no. 5 stood foreclosed. Thus there was no occasion to review the regularisation of the respondent no. 5. However, the order of the Joint Director of Education in relation to the respondent no. 5 that the said regularisation would take effect under Section 33-B of the Act appears to be justified as he could not have been given the benefit of regularisation under Section 33-A. However no final opinion is expressed thereon as the regularisation of the respondent no. 5 is still in jeopardy in Special Appeal No. 1603 of 2004, which is stated to be pending at the instance of one Shri R.N. Sharma. So far as, the respondent no. 6 is concerned, it is evident from the records that he was regularised w.e.f. 29.05.1992. In view of this, the regularisation of the respondent also cannot be now reopened after 17 years at the behest of the petitioner, who has been given the benefit of regularisation under the order dated 21.12.1994. The order dated 6th October, 2009 however incorrectly records the reason for placing the petitioner to be junior namely that the regularisation order has been cancelled. To that extent the order dated 06.10.2009 is erroneous. The order dated 6th October, 2009 however incorrectly records the reason for placing the petitioner to be junior namely that the regularisation order has been cancelled. To that extent the order dated 06.10.2009 is erroneous. Accordingly, the order dated 06.10.2009 is set aside to the aforesaid extent and the Regional Joint Director of Education shall pass orders in the light of the observations made hereinabove within a period of 6 weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the said respondent and after perusing the respective contentions of the parties. The writ petition is allowed subject to the directions contained hereinabove. " 8. From the perusal of the aforequoted judgment, it is absolutely clear that the respondent no.5 was regularised by an order dated 21st December, 1994 and the order of review dated 24th September, 2009 passed by the Joint Director of Education annuling his regularisation was set aside by this Court by judgment dated 1st December, 2009. From the judgment it is further clear that the respondent no.5 had also challenged another order dated 6th October, 2009 with regard to determination of seniority between him and two others (respondent nos. 5 and 6 in that writ petition). On this point the aforequoted judgment records that the order dated 6th October, 2009 is set aside and the Regional Director of Education shall pass orders in the light of the observations made; within six weeks. 9. It further appears that pursuant to the second direction in the aforequoted judgment dated 1st December, 2009, Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur passed an order dated 27th January, 2010, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition; whereby the seniority was decided. 10. It is admitted before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the judgment of this Court dated 1st December, 2009 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.53992 of 2009 nor the order of Joint Director of Education dated 27th January, 2010 passed in compliance to the orders of this Court, were challenged by the petitioner. 11. Under the circumstances, there appears to be no justification for the petitioner for not submitting the papers/reports as required by the respondent no. 4 by the impugned order dated 23rd June, 2015. 12. 11. Under the circumstances, there appears to be no justification for the petitioner for not submitting the papers/reports as required by the respondent no. 4 by the impugned order dated 23rd June, 2015. 12. In view of the aforenoted facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition completely lacks merit and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 13. In result, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.