ORDER : Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. The special appeal nos.1300 of 2013; 1297 of 2013; 1298 of 2013 and 1299 of 2013 have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 16.5.2013 passed by learned Single Judge by which Writ Petition No.18046 of 1985; 2775 of 1986; 22891 of 1989; 50312 of 2010, 18696 of 2012 and 24051 of 2013 were decided and the order of regularisation dated 31.7.2010 passed by Regional Selection Committee in favour of appellant-fifth respondent (Ram Mani Pandey) was set aside. The operative portion of the judgment dated 16.5.2013 is quoted as under:- "It is no doubt true that the appointment of Ram Mani Pandey against short term vacancy is on or before May, 14 1991 and, therefore, Section 33-B is attractive to that extent only. Heavy reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the Enquiry Report on the basis of which it is claimed that he has been continuously working since 1984. However, from the records this Court is satisfied that Ram Mani Pandey had actually not worked continuously since his initial appointment in the institution. It is the case of Ram Mani Pandey himself in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2775 of 1986 that he has not been permitted to work as L.T. Grade teacher in the institution after 18.10.1985 and that he was giving his attendance in the office of the District Inspector of Schools. It may also be recorded that between 1985 to 1995 there was no interim order operating in favour of Ram Mani Pandey in any of the writ petitions permitting him to continue in the institution. It is also admitted on record that for this period between 1985 to 1994 i.e. for nearly ten years, he has not been paid salary from the State exchequer which fact is admitted by the counsel for Ram Mani Pandey today in open Court. In such circumstances it cannot be said that despite having not worked for nearly 10 years, Ram Mani Pandey can be treated to be in continuous service in terms of Section 33-B (c) so as to be eligible for regularization. It has to be kept in mind that admission is the best piece of evidence. The enquiry report relied upon by Ram Mani Pandey is based more on assumption than on hard facts qua actual working of Ram Mani Pandey in the institution between 1985 to 1994. It has to be kept in mind that admission is the best piece of evidence. The enquiry report relied upon by Ram Mani Pandey is based more on assumption than on hard facts qua actual working of Ram Mani Pandey in the institution between 1985 to 1994. In the totality of the circumstances on record, this Court finds that the case of the petitioner is neither covered by Section 33-F nor is covered by Section 33-B. Therefore, the order regularizing the petitioner cannot be legally sustained. It is admitted on record that the vacancy in L.T. Grade had became substantive on 28.11.2008 with the regularization of Har Prasad Pandey as Lecturer (Civics). Therefore, the services of the petitioner have come to an automatic end in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2007 (1) ESC, 188 (Alld.). Writ petition filed by the Committee of Management No. 50312 of 2010 is allowed. Order of regularization dated 31.07.2010 passed by the Regional Selection Committee is hereby set aside. The services of Ram Mani Pandey have come to an end by operation of law on 28.11. 2008. Therefore, no mandamus as prayed for in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24051 of 2013 and in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22891 of 1989 need be granted as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18696 of 2012 is rendered infructuous. All these writ petitions stands decided accordingly." 2. Special Appeal No.1847 of 2010 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.3.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.19691 of 2005 (Hari Prasad Pathak & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) as well as the consequential order dated 31.7.2010 passed by Regional level Committee, Basti Region, Basti by which the service of fourth respondent (Ram Mani Pandey) had been regularized since 31.12.1984. The operative portion of the judgment 31.3.2010 is quoted as below:- "Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the background of the litigation, it is evident that the petitioners' claim on the post in question had earlier been rejected under the judgment of this Court dated 08.09.1987. The said judgment records the dispute in relation to the appointment of Hari Prasad Pathak-petitioner no. The said judgment records the dispute in relation to the appointment of Hari Prasad Pathak-petitioner no. 1 and consequently on that strength the Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners' appointment came to an end as Hari Prasad Pathak stood reverted. The petitioner no. 2-Ram Mani Pandey had admittedly been appointed against a short term vacancy caused due to the appointment on ad hoc basis of the petitioner no. 1-Hari Prasad Pathak. The appointment of Hari Prasad Pathak was approved on 7th October, 1983. The petitioner no. 2, who was appointed against the said short term vacancy, was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, vide order dated 31.12.1984. The order dated 31.12.1984 has neither been cancelled nor rescinded. It is admitted that no candidate of the Commission has been appointed against the said post and, therefore, the said approval continued in between. Hari Prasad Pathak has filed a couple of writ petitions, in which orders were passed on an interim basis but the writ petitions did not finally grant any relief to him. The fact remains that Hari Prasad Pathak continued on the promoted post in spite of the judgment dated 08.09.1987 due to orders passed in his favour in the subsequent writ petitions. The petitioner no. 2 was also favoured with the orders and the interim order was passed in the present writ petition on 24.07.1995 restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' functioning in the institution and their payment of salary. This order was also in favour of the petitioner no. 1-Hari Prasad Pathak. The fact relating to the dismissal of the writ petition dated 08.09.1987 has been clearly stated in paragraph 10 of the writ petition. The interim order, therefore, was granted after taking notice of every relevant fact the subsequent event of regularization of the petitioner no. 1 has taken place during the pendency of the present writ petition. It is in this context that the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous as against the petitioner no. 1. The fact of regularization of Hari Prasad Pathak has been admitted in paragraphs 4, 5 and 12 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Committee of Management. The regularization order dated 28.11.2008 has also been filed by the Management as annexure 6 to the counter affidavit. The said order has not been challenged nor has it been set aside till date. The regularization order dated 28.11.2008 has also been filed by the Management as annexure 6 to the counter affidavit. The said order has not been challenged nor has it been set aside till date. The regularization, therefore, in relation to Hari Prasad Pathak is complete and it has been accepted by the Committee of Management. In such a situation, neither the Committee of Management nor the Educational Authorities can now be permitted to turn around and question the same. They cannot be allowed to probate and approbate. The appointment and regularization of the petitioner no. 1-Hari Prasad Pathak is final even though the petition on his behalf has been dismissed as infructuous on 03.09.2008. As a matter of fact, the Committee of Management does not dispute the regularization of Hari Prasad Pathak. Once the fate of Shri Hari Prasad Pathak becomes undisputed then there is no occasion to dispute the claim of the petitioner no. 2. The petitioner no. 2 has continued and he has also been paid his salary. Whether he deserves to be regularized or not has to be seen by the Regional Level Committee and not by this Court. Accordingly, in view of the facts as brought out herein above, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner no. 2-Ram Mani Pandey to represent his claim with regard to the regularization before the Competent Authority, who shall decide the same within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order. Till such decision is taken, the petitioner shall continue to get the benefits under the approval order dated 31.12.1984 as continued by the order of this Court dated 31.07.1995." 3. Till such decision is taken, the petitioner shall continue to get the benefits under the approval order dated 31.12.1984 as continued by the order of this Court dated 31.07.1995." 3. The operative portion of the consequential order dated 31.7.2010 passed by Regional level Committee, Basti Region, Basti by which the service of fourth respondent (Ram Mani Pandey) had been regularized since 31.12.1984 is also quoted as under:- **mDr gsrq xfBr lEHkkxh; p;u lfefr }kjk ik;k x;k fd 14 ebZ 1991 dk rkRi;Z 14 ebZ 1991 rd rFkk mlds i'pkr~ 6 vxLr] 1993 ds i'pkr~ ugha] vFkkZr 06-08-1993 rd dh vof/k esa Jh jke ef.k ik.Ms; fnukad 01-01-1985 ls v|ru fu;qDr@dk;Zjr gS vkSj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk bUgsa ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd cLrh ds Lrj ls fuxZr vuqeksnu vkns'k fnukad 31-12-1984 ds leLr ifj.kke ykHk vuqeU; fd;s x;s gSa] lkFk gh lkFk Jh ik.Ms; ,y0Vh0 osrudze essa fu;qfDr gsrq ek/;fed f'k{kk vf/kfu;e 1921 esa of.kZr vgZrk/kkjh f'k{kd gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa lEHkkxh; p;u lfefr }kjk bUgsa mRrj izns'k ek/;fed f'k{kk lsok p;u cksMZ vf/kfu;e 1982 dh /kkjk 33&p ds vUrxZr loZlEefr ls fofu;fer fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gS rFkk p;u cksMZ fu;ekoyh] 1998 ds fu;e 17¼8½ ds vUrxZr buds fofu;ferhdj.k dh lwpuk ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd cLrh@izcU/k ra= fdlku b.Vj dkyst jlwyiqj rjsrk] cLrh dks fuxZr djrs gq;s mUgsa fufnZ"V djrh gS fd p;u cksMZ fu;ekoyh 1998 ds fu;e 9 ds vuqlkj visf{kr dk;Zokgh djsaA** 4. Since bone of contention involved in all the special appeals are similar, they are being decided by this common judgment. 5. The factual matrix giving rise to the present controversy is that there is an institution namely "Kisan Intermediate College, Rasoolpur Tareta, Post Office Rasoolpur, Distt. Basti" (in short "the institution"), which is an aided and recognised intermediate college and the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in short "the Act of 1921") and the rules and regulations framed thereunder as also those of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 are also applicable to the teachers of the said institution. 6. According to the appellant (Ram Mani Pandey), one Hari Prasad Pathak was working as L.T. Grade teacher in the institution. He was granted promotion as Lecturer (Civics) on adhoc basis and his promotion was approved by the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS), Basti vide order dated 7th October, 1983. 6. According to the appellant (Ram Mani Pandey), one Hari Prasad Pathak was working as L.T. Grade teacher in the institution. He was granted promotion as Lecturer (Civics) on adhoc basis and his promotion was approved by the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS), Basti vide order dated 7th October, 1983. As such a short term vacancy was caused in L.T. Grade in the institution. The said vacancy was advertised and the petitioner-appellant (Ram Mani Pandey) was appointed on the said post and the same was approved vide order of the DIOS dated 31st December, 1984. It was mentioned in the appointment letter as well as in the order of approval that the appointment of Ram Mani Pandey was being made under Section 18 of the Act of 1982 and that his appointment would cease on the date a candidate recommended by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board joins on the post of Lecturer. According to Ram Mani Pandey, his salary was stopped after 20th May, 1985. Aggrieved with the same he filed Writ Petition No.18046 of 1985 for a direction to the respondents to ensure payment of salary w.e.f. 21st May, 1985 onwards. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 22nd November, 1985 by providing that Ram Mani Pandey would continue till appointment is made on the post by the U.P. Secondary Services Commission or his services are terminated otherwise in accordance with law. As per the then prevailing situation, the DIOS, Basti had passed an order on 27th July, 1985 providing therein that no adhoc appointee is to continue after 30th June and salary of such adhoc employee may not be included in the salary bill of July onwards. On 4th November, 1985 another order was passed by the DIOS in respect of Hari Prasad Pathak to the effect that the Committee of Management did not have any jurisdiction to make any appointment on the vacancy which was within the direct recruitment quota. Accordingly, the proposal for promotion of Hari Prasad Pathak by the Committee of Management was rejected. Against the orders dated 27th July, 1985 and 4th November, 1985 passed by the DIOS, Ram Mani Pandey filed Writ Petition No.2775 of 1985. 7. Accordingly, the proposal for promotion of Hari Prasad Pathak by the Committee of Management was rejected. Against the orders dated 27th July, 1985 and 4th November, 1985 passed by the DIOS, Ram Mani Pandey filed Writ Petition No.2775 of 1985. 7. It is relevant to indicate that the Committee of Management once received the order dated 22nd November, 1985 passed in Writ Petition No.18046 of 1985 made a recall/review application on the ground that the same was passed ex parte and further taken a plea that once promotion of Hari Prasad Pathak as Lecturer (Civics) has been disapproved by the DIOS and he has been reverted to the post of LT Grade Teacher and he is working and getting salary of LT Grade since July, 1985, as such there was no vacancy against which Ram Mani Pandey could function as ad-hoc teacher. It had also been contended that short term vacancy came to automatic end with the reversion of Hari Prasad Pathak. Consequently the review/recall application filed in Writ Petition No.18046 of 1995 and the writ petition no.2775 of 1986 were heard together and by order dated 8th September, 1987 writ petition no.2775 of 1986 filed by Ram Mani Pandey was dismissed after recording that he had no locus to challenge the order disapproving the promotion of Hari Prasad Pathak. The recall application filed by Committee of Management was allowed and the order dated 22nd November, 1985 passed in Writ Petition No.18046 of 1985 was recalled and the writ petition no.18046 of 1985 was restored to its original number. Thereafter, Ram Mani Pandey made a review application in Writ Petition No.2775 of 1986 being Review Application No.1736526 of 1987, which remained pending. 8. The record in question further revealed that vacancy on the post of Lecturer (Civics) of the institution was advertised on 19th June, 1988. The same was subjected to challenge by Hari Prasad Pathak by means of Writ Petition No.20499 of 1988, wherein interim order was granted by a Division Bench of this Court on 14th October, 1988 restraining the respondents from making any appointment on the post of Lecturer (Civics) pursuant to the advertisement and as such Hari Prasad Pathak claimed that he was permitted to continue on the post of Lecturer (Civics). Again the second advertisement was published in respect of same post by the Selection Board in August, 1992 and the same was also challenged by Hari Prasad Pathak by means of Writ Petition No.30808 of 1992. The Writ Petition No.20499 of 1988 was dismissed on 3.11.2008 and Writ Petition No.30808 of 1992 was dismissed on 13.1.2009. 9. In this backdrop again the appellant-Ram Mani Pandey has filed Writ Petition No.22891 of 1989 for a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner in service and to pay salary to him of the post of teacher in L.T. Grade along with arrears. In the said writ petition at para 19, it has been stated "that however, the petitioner is not being paid any salary since 21st May, 1985 in the institution, although he is working in the institution." Initially in the said writ petition no interim order was accorded but subsequently on 11th April, 1994 an interim mandamus was passed to pay salary or to show cause. 10. The record in question further revealed that appellant-Ram Mani Pandey along with Hari Prasad Pathak filed Writ Petition No.19691 of 1995 against the advertisement published by the Commission dated 19th June, 1995, where under vacancy on the post of Lecturer (Civics) was again advertised. The said writ petition was finally disposed of on 31.3.2010, the operative portion of which has been quoted above. By the said order, so far as Hari Prasad Pathak is concerned, writ petition was dismissed as infructuous as he was already regularised, while in respect of Ram Mani Pandey it has been provided that his claim for regularization may be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1982. Pursuant to the said direction, Selection Committee was constituted under the Act of 1982, which has considered the case of Ram Mani Pandey on 31st July, 2010 and directed his regularization under Section 33-F of the Act of 1982. 11. Aggrieved with the regularisation order passed by the Regional Selection Committee dated 31.7.2010 the Committee of Management has filed Writ Petition No.50312 of 2010, wherein no interim order was granted. The Committee of Management, therefore, filed Special Appeal No.1847 of 2010 against the order of learned Single Judge dated 31st March, 2010 passed in Writ Petition No.19691 of 1995. The said special appeal no.1847 of 2010 is also before us for adjudication. 12. The Committee of Management, therefore, filed Special Appeal No.1847 of 2010 against the order of learned Single Judge dated 31st March, 2010 passed in Writ Petition No.19691 of 1995. The said special appeal no.1847 of 2010 is also before us for adjudication. 12. It appears that the Committee of Management, in the meantime, suspended Ram Mani Pandey vide resolution dated 28th October, 2010 and, thereafter, passed a resolution dated 6th April, 2011 proposing punishment of dismissal from service. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Selection Board under Section 21 of the Act of 1982 for its approval. The Committee of Management has also filed Writ Petition No.18696 of 2012 for mandamus commanding the second respondent to take appropriate decision on the resolution of the Management dated 6th April, 2011 by which the services of Ram Mani Pandey had been proposed to be terminated. It is relevant to mention that the Selection Board vide order dated 31st March, 2013 has disapproved the proposed punishment. Thereafter, aggrieved with the conduct of the Committee of Management, the appellant-Ram Mani Pandey had filed Writ Petition No.24051 of 2013 challenging the order dated 4th April, 2013, whereby the Management of the college refused to accept the joining of Ram Mani Pandey and for his continuance in the institution. In this backdrop, learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.5.2013 (impugned in the present special appeals) had proceeded to decide all the writ petitions. By the said order, the writ petition filed by Committee of Management was allowed and the writ petitions filed by Ram Mani Pandey was dismissed. The order of regularization dated 31.7.2010 passed by the Regional Selection Committee in favour of Ram Mani Pandey was also set aside. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant-Ram Mani Pandey has vehemently contended that the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 16.5.2013 is per se bad on the ground that while dismissing the claim of the petitioner-appellant (Ram Mani Pandey), at no point of time, learned Single Judge has proceeded to consider the various reasoning and findings recorded by learned Single Judge on 31.3.2010 while deciding Writ Petition No.19691 of 2005. It is sought to be contended that propriety demands that once categorical finding has been recorded and claim of Hari Prasad Pathak had already been considered by learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 31.3.2010, the said observation qua Ram Mani Pandey could not be brushed aside by another Single Judge. Even the order dated 31.3.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.19691 of 2005 is subjected to challenge in Special Appeal No.1847 of 2010 (C/M Kisan Inter College Rassolpur, Basti v. U.P. Secretary Education Service Commissioner Alld. & Ors.), wherein no interim order had been accorded in favour of the Committee of Management and the same is still pending consideration. As such on this score the special appeals filed by Ram Mani Pandey are liable to be allowed. 14. He further placed reliance on the D.O. letter/order dated 28.1.1987, which was issued by the Director of Education, U.P., by which the teachers those were working as adhoc on short term vacancy, they would be permitted to continue in service and they would not be disengaged/discontinued after 30th June. 15. In this backdrop, he had proceeded to make his precise submission that consequently taking into account the DO letter dated 28.1.1987 issued by the Director (Basic), the Manager of the institution had informed Ram Mani Pandey through his letter dated 29.7.1988 by which he had acknowledged the engagement of the appellant as adhoc on short term vacancy as per the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1982 and had also proceeded to acknowledge the approval so accorded by DIOS dated 31.12.1984 and further certified his continuance w.e.f. 1.1.1985. He further made submissions that the learned Single Judge could not visualise the ground realities, which were prevailing in early 1980s, wherein an incumbent, who had been inducted in the institution against the short term vacancy on adhoc basis, his/her services were to be ceased after the end of academic session and this was the main reason for stopping the salary of appellant and consequently plethora of litigations took place. Thereafter, keeping the judgment dated 9.4.1984 passed in Writ Petition No.16163 of 1984 (Manager Sanatan Dharm Inter College, Daulatpur Distt. Mainpuri v. District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri & Ors.) reported in UPLBEC 496; Vishwa Chandra Mishra & Ors. v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad & Ors., 1986 AWC 429; Sri Ram Ji Pathak & Ors. Thereafter, keeping the judgment dated 9.4.1984 passed in Writ Petition No.16163 of 1984 (Manager Sanatan Dharm Inter College, Daulatpur Distt. Mainpuri v. District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri & Ors.) reported in UPLBEC 496; Vishwa Chandra Mishra & Ors. v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad & Ors., 1986 AWC 429; Sri Ram Ji Pathak & Ors. v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad & Ors., UPLBEC 344 (Writ Petition No.3196 of 1986 decided on 11.2.1986); Narendra Bahadur Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Ballia & Ors., 1986 AWC 768 and various other judgments, as a policy decision the Director had passed an order on 28.1.1987 to the effect that once an incumbent is inducted as per the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1982, his/her services would not cease after the end of academic session i.e. 30th June. As such it is sought to be contended that only in that contingency initially the petitioner was disengaged after end of the academic session i.e. 30th June. Once as a policy decision the Director himself had issued D.O. letter dated 28th January, 1987 and only keeping the said DO once the manager of the institution by means of letter dated 29.7.1988 had certified the services of the appellant since 1.1.1985, as such the entire claim, which has been non-suited by learned Single Judge for regularisation cannot sustain, therefore, this Court should come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioner-appellant (Ram Mani Pandey). 16. Per contra Shri Uma Nath Pandey appearing for the Committee of Management has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 16.5.2013 is sustainable in the eyes of law, whereby learned Single Judge has proceeded to non-suit the claim of the petitioner-appellant (Ram Mani Pandey) for regularisation keeping the provisions contained under Section 33B and 33F of the Act of 1982 and found that the present claim for regularisation is impermissible under the said provisions. The regularisation order dated 31.7.2010 passed by the Regional Selection Committee could not sustain and the learned Single Judge has rightly proceeded to reject the said regularisation order, as such, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 16.5.2013. The regularisation order dated 31.7.2010 passed by the Regional Selection Committee could not sustain and the learned Single Judge has rightly proceeded to reject the said regularisation order, as such, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 16.5.2013. Once the appellant-Ram Mani Pandey had not performed duty in the institution from 1985 to 1995 and not being paid salary from the exchequer in between 1985 to 1995, then by no stretch of imagination the claim for regularisation can be considered and as such present appeals in question filed by Ram Mani Pandey are liable to be dismissed. 17. Heard rival submissions and perused the record. As per record, it is reflected that one Hari Prasad Pathak, who was working as LT Grade teacher in the institution was accorded promotion as Lecturer (Civics). His promotion was approved by DIOS, Basti vide order dated 7th October, 1983 and as such on account of promotion, an adhoc vacancy had occurred as LT Grade teacher. Thereafter, the vacancy in question was advertised and consequently the appellant-Ram Mani Pandey was inducted in the institution as adhoc LT Grade teacher against short term vacancy. The said appointment was duly approved by the DIOS vide order dated 31st December, 1984. From bare perusal of the appointment letter as well as approval letter, it is revealed that the appointment of the appellant was made under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order framed under Section 33 of the Act of 1982. His salary was stopped in the month of May, 1985. At the relevant point of time it was prevalent that in case any short term vacancy/substantive vacancy occurred and incumbent is inducted against the same then as per the provisions contained, the said engagement was liable to be ceased after 30th June (end of the academic sessions). Various litigations took place and on the directives issued by the Courts, the Director of Education, U.P. had issued guidelines/DO letter dated 28th January, 1987. Various litigations took place and on the directives issued by the Courts, the Director of Education, U.P. had issued guidelines/DO letter dated 28th January, 1987. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced as under:- mDr rVkafdr fu.kZ;ksa esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us funsZ'k fn;k gS fd m0iz0 ek0f'k0 lsok vk;ksx vkSj p;u cksMZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 18 ds rgr in gsrq U;wure ;ksX;rk /kkjh vkSj fof/kor fof/k ds vUrxZr ekSfyd fjfDr;ksa esa rnFkZ :i ls fu;qDr@inksUufr fd;s x;s f'k{kdksa dh lsok esa izR;sd o"kZ /kkjk&18¼3½ x ds vUrxZr 30 twu dks Lor% lekIr u le>s tk;sa tc rd vk;ksx ;k p;u cksMZ }kjk p;fur vH;FkhZ /kkjk 18@3 d ds vuqlkj vius in dk dk;ZHkkj u xzg.k dj ys ;k /kkjk 18¼3½ [k ds vuqlkj vof/k u lekIr gks tk;s ;k fof/kd vuqlkj fof/kor lsok;sa lekIr djus dh dk;Zokgh u iw.kZ gks tk;s] rc rd fujh{kd m0iz0 gkbZ Ldwy rFkk b.Vj fefM,V dkyst v/;kidksa rFkk vU; deZpkfj;ksa ds osru dk Hkqxrku vf/kfu;e ds rgr f'k{kdksa ds osru dk Hkqxrku rFkk fu;qfDr lacaf/kr ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd@ftyk ckfydk fo|ky; fujhf{kdk @ e.Myh; ckfydk fo|ky; fujhf{kdk djrh jgsA d`i;k funsZ'kkuqlkj dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr djsa 30 twu dks rnFkZ v/;kidksa dh lsok;sa lekIr djds iqu% vxys l= esa mlh in ij uohu rnFkZ fu;qfDr djus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA blls xzh"ekodk'k dk osru cpkuk U;k; laxr ugha gSA ¼ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; fu.kZ;&jruiky ,oa vU; cuke LVsV vkWQ gfj;k.kk½A Hkonh; g0 ch0ih0 [k.Msyoky] f'k{kk funs'kd m0iz0 18. The record in question further revealed that consequently in response to the said directives the letter dated 29.07.1988 had also been issued by the manager of the institution, wherein he had certified the services of the petitioner-appellant w.e.f. 1.1.1985. The record in question further revealed that consequently in response to the said directives the letter dated 29.07.1988 had also been issued by the manager of the institution, wherein he had certified the services of the petitioner-appellant w.e.f. 1.1.1985. The same is also reproduced hereunder:- lwP; gS fd f'k{kk funs'kd m0iz0 ds v}Z'kkldh; i=kad lkekU; 111 izFke@f'kfoj@59548&647@1086&87 fnukad 28-01-1987 ds vuqikyu esa ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd cLrh ds vuqeksnu i=kad 1339&93@84&85 fnukad 31-12-1984 ds }kjk ek/;fed f'k{kk lsok vk;ksx fu;ekoyh 1982 ds /kkjk 18 ds vUrxZr Lukrd osru dze osrueku 540&910 esa dh xbZ vkidh fu;qfDr fnukad 01-01-1985 dks yxkrkj ekurs gq, vkidks iqu% mlh in ij dk;Z djus dh vuqefr bl 'krZ ds lkFk iznku dh tkrh gS fd ek/;fed f'k{kk lsok vk;ksx ls laLd`r vH;FkhZ ds vk tkus ij vkidh lsok Lor% lekIr gks tk;sxhA vr% vki i= ikus dh frfFk ls iUnzg fnu ds vUnj fo|ky; ij vkdj viuk dk;ZHkkj iqu% xzg.k djds lwfpr djsaA 19. In the present matter, the DIOS, Basti vide his letter dated 27th July, 1985 had clearly informed to the institution that no adhoc appointee is to continue after 30th June and the salary of such adhoc employees may not be included in the salary bill of July. Admittedly, various writ petitions as indicated above had been filed by the petitioner-appellant (Ram Mani Pandey) either independently or along with Hari Prasad Pathak, as the fate of the appellant was definitely dependent upon the fate of Hari Prasad Pathak. We find from the record in question that once his salary was stopped, he had proceeded to file Writ Petition No.18046 of 1985 for a mandamus directing the respondents to ensure payment of salary w.e.f. 21st May, 1985. The said writ petition was initially disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated 22nd November, 1985 by providing that the appellant would continue till appointment is made on the post by U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board or his services are terminated, otherwise, in accordance with law. The record in question clearly reflected that either one pretext or the other the Committee of Management was not in helping hand to the appellant, only in this background management had moved an application for recall/review in the aforesaid Writ Petition No.18046 of 1985 on the ground that the order was passed without notice to the Committee of Management. The record in question clearly reflected that either one pretext or the other the Committee of Management was not in helping hand to the appellant, only in this background management had moved an application for recall/review in the aforesaid Writ Petition No.18046 of 1985 on the ground that the order was passed without notice to the Committee of Management. The said recall was filed only in the backdrop that promotion of Hari Prasad Pathak as Lecturer (Civics) had been disapproved by the DIOS and as such he was reverted to the post of LT Grade teacher and as such it had been claimed that there was no adhoc/short term vacancy. The said order dated 22.11.1985 was recalled and the writ petition no.2775 of 1986 filed by the appellant-Ram Mani Pandey was dismissed after recording that he had no locus to challenge the order disapproving the promotion of Hari Prasad Pathak. In the said writ petition, Review Application No.1736526 of 1987 was also pending consideration. 20. The record in question clearly reflected that the appellant- Ram Mani Pandey had admittedly been appointed against short term vacancy caused due to appointment of Shri Hari Prasad Pathak on adhoc basis. The appointment of Shri Hari Prasad Pathak was approved on 7th October, 1983 and consequently after following due procedure the appellant was appointed against short term vacancy and his appointment was also accorded approval by DIOS vide order dated 31.12.1984. It is not disputed that the order of approval dated 31.12.1984 passed in favour of Ram Mani Pandey is neither cancelled nor rescinded till today and this much is also admitted situation that no candidate of Board has ever been appointed against the post, which has been held by the appellant. As such the order of approval continued. As such the fact remains that in spite of judgment and order dated 8.9.1987, Hari Prasad Pathak continued to work on the promoted post due to order passed in his favour in the subsequent writ petitions and the respondents were also restrained in interfering in the functioning in the institution, as per interim order dated 24.7.1995 passed in Writ Petition No.19691 of 1995. 21. Admittedly, the regularisation order had been passed in favour of Hari Prasad Pathak on 28.11.2008 and the same had been accepted by the Committee of Management and finally he had also attained the age of superannuation. 21. Admittedly, the regularisation order had been passed in favour of Hari Prasad Pathak on 28.11.2008 and the same had been accepted by the Committee of Management and finally he had also attained the age of superannuation. Nodoubt even his regularisation had also been questioned by the management but anyhow the same has attained finality. Consequently the Writ Petition No.19691 of 1995 was dismissed as infructuous against the petitioner no.1 i.e. Hari Prasad Pathak on 3.9.2008 on the ground that his services were already regularised w.e.f. 28.11.2008. Keeping the entire scenario and controversy in hand learned Single Judge vide order dated 31.3.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.19691 of 1995 had directed the competent authority to consider the regularisation of Ram Mani Pandey and till such decision is taken, he shall continue to get the benefits under the approval order dated 31.12.1984 as continued by the order of this Court dated 31.7.1995. 22. Thereafter, in compliance of the order of the Court, the competent authority i.e. Regional Selection Committee had proceeded to consider the case of the appellant-Ram Mani Pandey for regularisation and passed an order on 31.7.2010 in his favour. The same was subjected to challenge by the Committee of Management in Writ Petition No.50312 of 2010 and learned Single Judge in the order impugned dated 16.5.2013 had allowed the said writ petition and has set aside the order of regularization dated 31.7.2010 on the ground that in between 1985 to 1995 no interim order was operating in favour of the appellant and for 1985 to 1994 nearly ten years he had not been paid salary from State exchequer and as such his case was not liable to be considered as per the provisions contained under Section 33B or 33F of the Act No.5 of 1982. No doubt in the present matter the case of the appellant was liable to be considered as per the provisions contained under Section 33B of the Act. No doubt in the present matter the case of the appellant was liable to be considered as per the provisions contained under Section 33B of the Act. Relevant portion of Section 33-B of the Act of 1982 is reproduced as under:- "Regularisation of certain other appointments :- (I) Any teacher other than the Principal or Headmaster, who-- (a) (I) was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment in the lecturer grade or Trained Graduate grade on or before May 14, 1991 or in the Certificate or Teaching grade or before May 13, 1989 against a short term vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981and such vacancy was subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy or (b)....... (c) has been continuously serving the Institution from the date or such appointment up to the date of the commencement of the Act referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a); (d)....... (e) has been found suitable for appointment in a substantive capacity by a Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (2), shall be given substantive appointment by the Management." 23. No doubt the appellant was initially inducted against the short term vacancy occurred in the institution prior to May 14th, 1991 and admittedly his initial induction was strictly in consonance with the Difficulty Orders and at no point of time the Committee of Management had assailed his initial induction against the short term vacancy and the same was also accorded approval by the DIOS vide order dated 31.12.1984 and at no point of time the said order had been rescinded. Initially his salary was stopped on account of end of session. For the said purpose it is relevant to reiterate the DO letter dated 28th January, 1987 issued by the Director, wherein as a policy decision it was resolved that after the end of academic session i.e. 30th June the incumbent who has been inducted in the institution under Section 18 of the Act of 1982, he/she would be entitled for salary and the said order had been passed in compliance of various directions issued by this Court as has already been mentioned in detail. Consequently, in response to the said letter the Manager of the institution had proceeded to issue a letter on 29.7.1988 giving continuity of engagement to the appellant w.e.f. 1.1.1985. Consequently, in response to the said letter the Manager of the institution had proceeded to issue a letter on 29.7.1988 giving continuity of engagement to the appellant w.e.f. 1.1.1985. Even otherwise, once the appointment of Raj Mani Pandey had been made under the provision of Second Removal of Difficulties Order, the life span of the said appointment as per law holding the field was till such period when short term vacancy otherwise, ceases to exist. Short term vacancy has ceased to exist on 28.11.2008 when Hari Prasad Pathak has been regularised as Lecturer (Civics) and prior to it Section 33 B of UP Act No. V of 1982 stood introduced on the statute book for extending benefit of regularisation to such set of incumbents appointed against short term vacancy. 24. While deciding the writ petition no.19691 of 1995 learned Single Judge has clearly observed that till the decision is taken, the appellant shall continue to get benefit of approval order dated 31.12.1984 as continued by the interim order dated 31.7.1995 in the said writ petition. 25. On this score, we are of the considered opinion that once this is the factual situation that while deciding the Writ Petition No.19691 of 1995 learned Single Judge has proceeded to observe various factual aspect of the matter and the same has also been assailed in the appeal and no interim order has been passed in it, then we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order dated 16.5.2013 had failed to consider the impact of order dated 31.3.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.19691 of 1995 in true spirit and recorded various findings, which is just contrary to the observations made by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.19691 of 1995, which has still not been upset by the appellate court and still holds the field. Judicial propriety demands that once the order dated 31.3.2010 holds the field and the same has not been either stayed or upset by the appellate court, then we are of the considered opinion that the finding of facts recorded contrary to it by learned Single Judge in the order dated 16.5.2013 cannot sustain. 26. Judicial propriety demands that once the order dated 31.3.2010 holds the field and the same has not been either stayed or upset by the appellate court, then we are of the considered opinion that the finding of facts recorded contrary to it by learned Single Judge in the order dated 16.5.2013 cannot sustain. 26. Moreover, it is further relevant to indicate that while deciding the Writ Petition No.24051 of 2013 by order dated 16.5.2013, learned Single Judge has observed to the extent that it is admitted on record that vacancy in LT Grade had become substantive on 28.11.2008 with the regularisation of Hari Prasad Pathak as Lecturer (Civics), therefore, the services of the petitioner (Ram Mani Pandey) have come to an automatic end in view of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2007 (1) ESC 188 (Alld). The said observation was also not available to learned Single Judge once the order dated 31.3.2010 was prior to the passing of the order dated 16.5.2013. 27. It is relevant to indicate that while considering the claim of the appellant for regularisation, the committee has also placed reliance on the enquiry report so submitted by the Finance and Accounts Officer dated 6.5.2009. While submitting his report the enquiry officer has also considered the order dated 28.1.1987 passed by the Director by which he had directed for adhoc teachers those were appointed under Section 18 of the U.P. Act No.5 of 1982, that they would also be entitled for salary for the month of June and the said period would also be counted towards service. As such the enquiry officer clearly proceeded to observe that since 20.5.1985 the stoppage of salary of appellant was contrary to the directives issued by the Director (Madhyamik). He further placed reliance on the letter dated 29.7.1988 by which the then Manager of the institution had certified the continuity of service of Shri Ram Mani Pandey w.e.f. 1.1.1985 till the incumbent sent by the Board. He has further placed reliance on the letter dated 17.04.2009 issued by the then Manager of the institution namely Shri Praful Chandra Mishra that Mr. Ram Mani Pandey is in fact imparting education in the institution since 1.1.1985 and at no point of time there was any break in service. He has further placed reliance on the letter dated 17.04.2009 issued by the then Manager of the institution namely Shri Praful Chandra Mishra that Mr. Ram Mani Pandey is in fact imparting education in the institution since 1.1.1985 and at no point of time there was any break in service. From the averment contained in the said enquiry report this much is also reflected that on the directives of the Manger of the institution Shri Ram Mani Pandey continued to sign on the separate attendance register since 1.7.1985 to 7.8.1995. He further drawn conclusion on the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein he has considered that in case Shri Ram Mani Pandey was not working in the institution, then definitely he could set up his case before the department or the Court for suitable direction that his appointment in the institution may be validated, whereas successive writ petitions have been filed claiming only the salary. He further observed that the said order dated 3.8.1995 was only for the purpose of singing in the regular teachers register but may not be treated as fresh appointment. The said claim was further fortified as per the directives issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.22891 of 1989 for payment of regular salary to Shri Ram Mani Pandey. It is important to mention that the Principal of the institution has taken a stand that the DIOS, Basti vide his order dated 19.4.1996 has directed for payment of salary to Shri Ram Mani Pandey from the date of his joining. In this backdrop, the Principal of the institution has drawn the conclusion that the joining of Shri Ram Mani Pandey is to be taken as 8.8.1995 but on spot in compliance of the order dated 24.7.1995 passed by this Court, the DIOS, Basti has directed the payment of Shri Ram Mani Pandey w.e.f. 1.1.1985. 28. Under the present facts and circumstances, it is relevant to indicate that the learned Single Judge had rejected the regularisation order dated 31.7.2010 passed by the Regional Selection Committee on the ground that Shri Ram Mani Pandey had actually not worked between 1985 to 1995 i.e. nearly for 10 years and had not been paid salary from the State exchequer. Keeping in view the background of litigations we feel that since 1985 to 1995 various writ petitions have been filed and mostly Ram Mani Pandey had claimed for salary. Keeping in view the background of litigations we feel that since 1985 to 1995 various writ petitions have been filed and mostly Ram Mani Pandey had claimed for salary. As per the enquiry dated 6th May, 2009, the enquiry officer has approved the claim of Ram Mani Pandey regarding his regularisation with categorical finding of fact that Ram Many Pandey is working continuously in the institution since 1.1.1985 and has approved the order dated 16.3.2009 passed by DIOS by which the claim of Ram Mani Pandey was accepted qua his salary w.e.f. 1.1.1985. Once the categorical finding of fact has been recorded by Finance and Accounts Officer/Enquiry Officer on 6.5.2009, wherein after considering each and every aspect of the matter he has found that Shri Ram Mani Pandey was in fact working in the institution since 1.1.1985 and the said finding of fact is moreover acknowledged by the learned Single Judge while deciding the Writ Petition No.19691 of 1995 dated 31.3.2010, only thereafter he had directed for considering the claim of regularisation of Ram Many Pandey and consequently in response to the directives the regularisation order dated 31.7.2010 has been passed by the Regional Selection Committee, we are of the considered opinion that correct facts have been appreciated by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 19691 of 1995, which was solely based upon the finding of fact as has been recorded by the enquiry officer in its report dated 6.5.2009. As such we are of the considered opinion that under the present facts and circumstances as has been indicated above contrary view expressed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.24051 of 2013 are unsustainable and as such the same are rejected. 29. In view of above, the order dated 16.5.2013 passed by learned Single Judge cannot sustain and is accordingly set aside. The order of regularisation dated 31.7.2010 passed by the Regional Selection Committee is hereby approved. The respondents are directed to extend all the consequential benefits to the appellant (Ram Mani Pandey) forthwith. 30. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Special Appeal No.1847 of 2010 is dismissed and all other special appeals are accordingly disposed of.