JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri J.N. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Som Kartik for the respondent no. 4. 2. This appeal questions the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.01.2017 whereby the claim of promotion of the respondent no. 4-petitioner has been directed to be considered by the Regional Level Committee. 3. The ground of challenge is that the respondent no. 4- petitioner was not entitled for regularization, he was not eligible to seek even continuance in service and he had been regularized without considering the impact of the dismissal of writ petition No. 1217 of 1989 on 26th of August, 2004. The contention is that in the absence of any valid status as a teacher in the institution, any consequential claim of the respondent no. 4 was not founded in law and, as such, any claim of consideration of promotion could not be considered as the respondent no. 4-petitioner did not have any such right of consideration. Learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge, has therefore, erred in coming to the conclusion that the order of the Regional Level Committee dated 02.01.2017 deserves to be quashed. 4. We have considered the submissions raised and what we find is that the respondent-petitioner had admittedly filed a writ petition claiming his continuance and salary on ad-hoc basis having been initially appointed against a leave vacancy. This writ petition no. 1217 of 1989 was entertained and the respondent-petitioner was favoured with an interim order dated 13.02.1989. The same is extracted here-in-under: "Admit. Notice on behalf of opposite party No. 1 has been accepted by the Chief Standing Counsel. Issue notice to opposite party No. 2. Until further orders of the Court, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service." 5. As a consequence of this interim order, the respondent-petitioner continued to serve the institution. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent-petitioner was considered for regularization keeping in view the provisions of Section 33-B of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, 1982 and a regularization order was passed on 06.02.1996. 6. In view of the provisions under the relevant Government Orders, applicable, on completion of 10 years of service, the respondent-petitioner was also extended the benefit of absorption in higher Grade, namely, the LT-Grade by means of the order dated 12th of October, 1999. 7. 6. In view of the provisions under the relevant Government Orders, applicable, on completion of 10 years of service, the respondent-petitioner was also extended the benefit of absorption in higher Grade, namely, the LT-Grade by means of the order dated 12th of October, 1999. 7. It may be placed on record that none of these orders were ever challenged or questioned by anyone including the Committee of Management and they remained intact throughout except when the present appellant-Committee of Management raked the issue in the year, 2013 after a lapse of more than one and half decades. 8. Writ petition No. 1217 of 1989 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 26th of August, 2004. Even, thereafter, till 2013 i.e. for almost 11 years, no one questioned either the continuance or the regularization of the respondent-petitioner's service. 9. It is when the respondent-petitioner staked his claim for promotion in Lecturer's Grade that the Committee of Management raised a dispute about his initial continuance, the dismissal of the writ petition, regularization and having wrongly been awarded the absorption in LT-Grade. 10. The learned Single Judge having noticed all these facts came to the conclusion that while considering the claim of promotion, the Regional Committee was unjustified in proceeding to reopen the issue of regularization and the other service benefits of the respondent-petitioner inasmuch as the same issue was beyond the authority of the Committee considering the claim of promotion. The learned Single Judge further found that the dismissal of the writ petition in default was inconsequential on account of the intervening developments and consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the order dated 02.01.2017 refusing to consider the claim of the respondent-petitioner, was set aside. 11. Sri Som Kartik, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the orders referred to here-in-above and also to the claim in relation to the promotion of the respondent-petitioner that had been contested by one Smt. Shobhna Srivastava. It is urged by Sri Som Kartik that as a matter of fact the Committee considering the issue of promotion had no authority in law to enter into the issue of the eligibility of the respondent-petitioner without there being any challenge raised to either the regularization order or to the order granting LT-Grade to the respondent-petitioner in the year, 1999. 12. 12. Learned Standing Counsel has also supported the stand taken by the appellant and has urged that the order dated 02.01.2017 reflects the correct position and did not deserve any interference by the learned Single Judge. 13. Having considered the submissions raised, it is evident from the facts on record that neither the order of regularization nor the order granting LT-Grade in the year, 1996 and 1999 as referred here-in-above were ever challenged, questioned or even modified during this span of almost two decades. The respondent-petitioner was allowed to continue and he was extended all benefits under the aforesaid orders treating him to be a validly appointed and approved teacher. The Committee of Management cannot therefore claim any ignorance about the continuance of the respondent-petitioner or the passing of such orders under which the respondent-petitioner was continuing as a teacher and subsequently as an LT-Grade teacher after his absorption. It appears that during the course of the consideration for claim of promotion that the Committee of Management having forwarded the case of Smt. Shobhana Srivastava, raked up this issue relating to the eligibility of the respondent-petitioner. The Committee was estopped from doing so having acquiesced to the continuance of the respondent-petitioner and his regularization for the past more than two decades. The conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge that the dismissal of the writ petition in default was inconsequential on account of these intervening developments, is therefore, justified and does not call for any interference. The Regional Level Committee had without any justification or authority proceeded to re-open the issue of the eligibility of the respondent-petitioner on the aforesaid grounds, and therefore, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has not committed any error in quashing the order dated 02.01.2017. 14. Sri J.N. Mathur, also urged that the impugned judgment was passed without hearing the Committee of Management and the writ petition had been allowed at the very outset. It is correct that the appellant-Committee had not been issued notices but even before us on the merits as we have indicated herein above the appellant-Committee of Management has failed to make out any case for interference with the impugned judgment. 15. We, therefore, satisfied that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. The appeal lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.