JUDGMENT : 1. These two special appeals have been filed assailing a common judgment in a writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1 claiming continuance and payment of salary as an Assistant Teacher in the LT Grade in Public Higher Secondary School, Sampla Begumpur, District-Saharanpur which is an Institution recognized and governed by the provisions of the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder. Selections, appointments and related matters of teachers in recognized and aided institutions are governed by the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder coupled with the Removal of Difficulties Orders enforced from time to time. The power of the management to make appointments including that on adhoc basis came to be discussed and considered in detail in the Full Bench decision of our Court in the case of Radha Raizada Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board & Others reported in 1994 (2) ESC 345. For appointment against a leave vacancy on short term basis, the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, Clause 2(b) and (c) were enforced w.e.f. 31.07.1981 (First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981) that came to be deleted and substituted by Clause-5 thereof. Resultantly, the State came up with the Removal of Difficulties Second Order, 1981 Clause-2 whereof prescribed the entire procedure of appointment on short term basis against a leave vacancy or against a vacancy due to suspension of teacher. The legislative history has been traced in the above noted decision and again by another Full Bench in the case of Smt. Pramila Misra Vs. Deputy Director Education Jhansi 1997 (2) ESC 1284. A learned Single Judge has also, quoting the above provisions, dealt with the same in the case of Arvind Mishra & Others Vs. Deputy Director Education, Gorakhpur & Others reported in 1996 (3) ESC 574. 2. The appointment in the said Institution was claimed by the respondent no. 1 against a leave vacancy on account of one Subhash Singh, a teacher in the said Institution proceeding on long leave from 28.09.1992 to 28.09.1994. 3. The respondent no. Deputy Director Education, Gorakhpur & Others reported in 1996 (3) ESC 574. 2. The appointment in the said Institution was claimed by the respondent no. 1 against a leave vacancy on account of one Subhash Singh, a teacher in the said Institution proceeding on long leave from 28.09.1992 to 28.09.1994. 3. The respondent no. 1 is stated to have applied against an advertisement that was published by the Management on 1st February, 1993 and upon being selected, a letter of appointment was issued by the Prabandh Sanchalak (Authorized Controller / Administrator) functioning in place of the Committee of Management that had been superceded. The said Prabandh Sanchalak was an Associate District Inspector of Schools, Sri Raj Kumar Sharma who is stated to have issued a letter of appointment to the respondent no. 1 on 8th April, 1993. The respondent no. 1 is stated to have joined in the Institution on 24th April, 1993 whereupon the Prabandh Sanchalak intimated the District Inspector of Schools about the same with a request for grant of approval to the appointment of the first respondent. The Accounts Officer attached to the office of the District Inspector of Schools who is the authority competent to disburse salary in terms of The U.P. High Schools & Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers & Other Employees) Act, 1971 passed an order on 30th June, 1993 granting financial sanction to the said appointment of the respondent no. 1 with a request to the District Inspector of Schools to approve the same. A copy of the said order was sent to the Principal of the Institution to prepare and send the salary bill of the respondent no. 1 after approval by the District Inspector of Schools. 4. The respondent no. 1 had made a complaint that the Principal of the Institution was not allowing the appointee to sign the attendance register which was subsequently permitted and the signatures were allowed to be made for the period 24.04.1993 to 07.04.1993, but the said page of the attendance register was torn and thrown away. This led to the filing of Writ Petition No. 27233 of 1993 by the respondent no. 1 praying for payment of salary in which the following interim order was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 11.08.1993. “Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a month's time to file C.A. For respondent no. This led to the filing of Writ Petition No. 27233 of 1993 by the respondent no. 1 praying for payment of salary in which the following interim order was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 11.08.1993. “Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a month's time to file C.A. For respondent no. 1. Petitioner will have three weeks thereafter to file R.A. Petitioner shall take steps to serve respondent nos. 2 and 3 personally in addition to normal mode of service. Steps shall be taken within a week. Office shall issue notices returnable within six. Affidavit of service may be filed by the next date of listing. List the petition thereafter. Meanwhile, if the petitioner is working on the post, he shall be paid his current salary. However, the payment of arrears shall be subject to the final orders passed in the writ petition.” 5. The District Inspector of Schools raised a query on 10th September from the Principal of the Institution about the claim of payment of salary by the respondent no. 1 to which the Principal on 14th September, 1993 gave a reply stating that the respondent no. 1 has not worked in the Institution nor is he an employee of the Institution. It is also on record that the Prabandh Sanchalak who had issued a letter of appointment to the respondent no. 1 kept on calling upon the Principal to permit the respondent no. 1 to discharge his duties as such. The Prabandh Sanchalak in the aforesaid writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1 filed a counter affidavit supporting the claim of the first respondent and when the matter came up again, a learned Single Judge passed a detail interim order on 29th October, 1993 which is extracted hereinunder:- “It is alleged that in the leave vacancy of Subhash Singh who was appointed in another institution, the petitioner was appointed in L.T. Grade Teacher in Public Higher Secondary Education Sanpala Begumpur, district Saharanpur on 8.4.93. It is alleged that although the papers for grant of financial approval of petitioner's appointment were sent to the District Inspector of Schools but the District Inspector of Schools did not disapprove or approve the said appointment. It is alleged that although the papers for grant of financial approval of petitioner's appointment were sent to the District Inspector of Schools but the District Inspector of Schools did not disapprove or approve the said appointment. It has been argued that under the second removal of Difficulties Order, the appointment of the petitioner stands deemed approve as the disapproval order was not communicated by the District Inspector of Schools within a period of seven days. Petitioner's grievance in the writ petition is that although he stands duly approved and is working as L.T. Grade teacher, but the District Inspector of Schools is not paying his salary. In the circumstances, the District Inspector of Schools is directed to pass orders on the application sent by the Managing Committee the College regarding approval of petitioners' appointment within a period of one month from the date of filing a certified copy of this order. The District Inspector of Schools, Saharanur shall examine petitioner's case in the light of the relevant provisions including the 2nd Removal of Difficulties Order of 1981. In case, the District Inspector of Schools finds that the petitioners' appointment is not legal, he shall give specific reasons for disapproving petitioner's appointment. In case, the petitioner's appointment is approved by the District Inspector of Schools, he shall make orders for immediate payment of petitioner's salary with effect from the date of this appointment. List again for admission after six weeks.” 6. The aforesaid interim direction was to the District Inspector of Schools to pass orders in this regard. Before the District Inspector of Schools could pass an order, a fresh advertisement was made with regard to the same post on 4th February, 1994 and an application from one Satya Pal Singh was hurriedly entertained. It is to be noticed that Satya Pal Singh was a Class-IV Employee in the same Institution. According to the affidavit of Satya Pal Singh, the interview was held on 7th February, 1994. 7. The District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 16th February, 1994 disapproving the appointment of the respondent no. 1. 8. On 28th February, 1994 Satya Pal Singh was issued a letter of appointment. 9. According to the affidavit of Satya Pal Singh, the interview was held on 7th February, 1994. 7. The District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 16th February, 1994 disapproving the appointment of the respondent no. 1. 8. On 28th February, 1994 Satya Pal Singh was issued a letter of appointment. 9. The District Inspector of Schools on being apprised of the directions of the High Court and the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 wherein there is a clause of deemed approval, a fresh order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 13th April, 1994 rejecting the proposal of the appointment of Satya Pal Singh who was reverted back to his original post of Class-IV employee. Simultaneously, the District Inspector of Schools rejected the proposal of appointment of one Anil Kumar as a Class-IV employee that was in place of Satya Pal Singh. 10. Satya Pal Singh filed Writ Petition No. 13573 of 1994 assailing the order dated 13th April, 1994 in which the following interim order was passed on 22nd April, 1994. “Notice on behalf of the respondent no. 4 has been accepted by Shri C.S. Sharma, Advocate. He prays for and is granted one week time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter, List for admission on May, 1994. L.T. Grade post of teacher fell vacant in Public Higher Secondary School, Sampla Begumpur, District Saharanpur. Petitioner claims that appointment of respondent no. 4 was invalid and they should have been appointed. Petitioner's claims were accepted by the Prabandh Sanchalak but subsequently the order has been reviewed by the order dated 13th April, 1994, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 10 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that District Inspector of Schools, respondent no. 1 had not given opportunity of hearing while deciding the said representation. The petitioners shall make representation to respondent no. 1 who shall after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent no. 4, pass a fresh order within one month. In case the petitioners make representation within ten days from today the operation of the order dated 13th April, 1994 shall remain stayed till 11th July, 1994. List for admission on 11th July, 1994.” 11. 1 who shall after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent no. 4, pass a fresh order within one month. In case the petitioners make representation within ten days from today the operation of the order dated 13th April, 1994 shall remain stayed till 11th July, 1994. List for admission on 11th July, 1994.” 11. On the administrative side an enquiry was conducted by the District Magistrate-Saharanpur who wrote a D.O. Letter to the Principal Secretary Education on 30.04.1994 confirming the validity of the appointment of the respondent no. 1 and his approval. 12. Under the interim order dated 22nd April, 1994, the District Inspector of Schools had also been issued a direction to pass an order. In compliance thereof, the District Inspector Schools passed a fresh order on 24th May, 1994 clearly recording that since the appointment of the respondent no. 1 stood deemed approved under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981, therefore there was no vacancy against which Satya Pal Singh could have been offered appointment nor could Anil Kumar have been appointed as a Class-IV employee in the resultant vacancy. Consequently, the claim of Satya Pal Singh and Anil Kumar was once again rejected. The comments of the Principal against the respondent no. 1 with regard to his functioning was also rejected. 13. Aggrieved by the said order Satya Pal Singh filed another Writ Petition No. 23164 of 1994. The said writ petition came up alongwith Writ Petition No. 27233 of 1993 filed by the respondent no. 1 and both the writ petitions were disposed of by separate orders on 31st March, 1995 with a direction to the parties to approach the Deputy Director Education who may hear the grievances of the respondent no. 1 and Satya Pal Singh and then pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 23164 of 1994 is extracted hereinunder:- “Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.05.1994 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur. The dispute raised herein is, in my opinion, a dispute within the meaning of paragraph 7 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, thought arising on the basis of the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools. The dispute raised herein is, in my opinion, a dispute within the meaning of paragraph 7 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, thought arising on the basis of the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools. In my opinion, the petitioners may avail of the remedy available to them under paragraph 7 of the aforesaid Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, since the writ petition was filed way back on 18th July, 1994, it is observed that in case the petitioners file an appeal representation before the Regional Deputy Director of Education, the same shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation. The Regional.....................” The judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 27233 of 1993 is extracted hereinunder:- “Having considered learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that petitioners entitlement to salary would depend upon the order passed by Regional Deputy Director of Education pursuance to direction issued by this Court, vide order of the date passed in Writ Petition No. 23164/1994. The petition stands disposed of accordingly” 14. On this direction, the Deputy Director Education proceeded to pass an order on 17th October, 1995 rejecting the claim of the respondent no. 1 once again. Writ Petition No. 32506 of 1995 was filed by the respondent no. 1 assailing the said order of the Deputy Director Education that was disposed of on 2nd April, 1997 with a direction to the DIOS to decide the said dispute once again. 15. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction of the High Court, the District Inspector of Schools on 3rd May, 1997 passed an order rejecting the claim of the respondent no. 1 on the ground that there was no proof of his actual working in the Institution, and therefore, no ground was made out for payment of salary. It is this order that has been challenged in Writ Petition No. 19063 of 1997 that has given rise to the present appeal. 16. The facts take a turn from this juncture after the writ petition came up for final disposal on 15th April 1999 when it was dismissed by the following judgment:- “The petitioner alleges to have been appointed in the school as a teacher but the Principal had been refusing to allow him to work and prevented him from signing the attendance register. On an earlier occasion, a writ petition was filed being Writ Petition No. 32506 of 1995, which was disposed of on 2nd April, 1999 directing the respondents to consider the petitioners representation. By an order dated 3rd May, 1997 the representation was considered. The said order is Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition since been challenged. It appears from the said order that the authority had come to a finding that there is nothing to show that the petitioner had ever taken over charge nor he had been attending the school or had been teaching in the school. In the attendance register, his name does not find place. It is mentioned that after hearing and examining the records, it has come to a finding that the petitioner had not been working in the school. Counsel for the petitioner, however, relied on Annexure 7 to the writ petition, which is dated 16th April, 1993. The petitioner was alleged to have been appointed some times in April, 1993. The said letter dated 16th July, 1993 may be relevant for the period till 16th July, 1993 may be relevant for the period till 16th July, 1993. It cannot be relevant for a period thereafter. The said letter was addressed by the administrator that he was appointed and had taken over charge. But despite three months having been passed, the salary was not paid to him. He had filed another writ petition being writ petition no. 27233 of 1993. But the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show as to what has happened to the said writ petition. He further relies on the counter affidavit filed in the said writ petition in order to substantiate that the petitioner had been wording. The fact remains that the question is a disputed question of fact, which may not be gone into sitting in writ jurisdiction. Then again this admission was made before writ petition no. 32506 of 1995 was moved. The question that could have been relevant in the earlier writ petition, cannot be repeated in the present writ petition. In case the writ petition no. 27233 of 1993 is disposed of, in that event those questions had reached its finality in the order passed in the said writ petition. 32506 of 1995 was moved. The question that could have been relevant in the earlier writ petition, cannot be repeated in the present writ petition. In case the writ petition no. 27233 of 1993 is disposed of, in that event those questions had reached its finality in the order passed in the said writ petition. In case the writ petition has not been decided and disposed of, in that event, those questions can be gone into in the writ petition. The learned counsel has not been able to enlighten this Court as to the stage of the said writ petition no. 27233 of 1993. Under these circumstances, it would be only unsafe to rely on the documents contained in Annexure 7 of this writ petition and the counter affidavit of writ petition no. 27233 of 1993. Under these circumstances, there is nothing to show that the alleged dispute was frivolous or baseless. In view of the above, since the matter involves disputed question of fact, this writ petition is dismissed. No cost. However, in case the earlier writ petition is pending, this order would not affect the decision in the earlier writ petition.” 17. Aggrieved the respondent no.1 filed review application on 28.08.2000 that was allowed on 7th July, 2003 by the following order which is extracted hereinunder:- “By the present review petition seeking review of order dated 15.4.99 which has dismissed the writ petition by saying that the matter involves disputed question of fact and also as if writ petition no. 27233 of 1993 of petitioner was pending. According to the petitioner he was duly selected by Selection Committee, his selection and financial approval was granted by the D.I.O.S. And he joined the college, however at some stage he was not allowed to put signature and several papers in respect of putting his signature were torn from the register and were burnt. The petitioner has filed several writ petitions for different cause of action. The above writ petition no. 27233 of 1993 was decided on 31.3.95 (enclosed as Annexure-1 to the review petition). The writ petition no. 23164 of 1994 was disposed of on 31.3.1995 (Satya Pal Singh Vs. D.I.O.S.) where the petitioner hereunder was respondent no. 5. The writ petition no. 19063 of 1997 too was disposed of with the direction to the Deputy Director of Education to decide the representation in question in the issue. The writ petition no. 23164 of 1994 was disposed of on 31.3.1995 (Satya Pal Singh Vs. D.I.O.S.) where the petitioner hereunder was respondent no. 5. The writ petition no. 19063 of 1997 too was disposed of with the direction to the Deputy Director of Education to decide the representation in question in the issue. By the order dated 2.4.97 the writ petition no. 32506 of 1995 (shobha Ram Dhiman Vs. Dy. Director of Education, Ist Region, Meerut & others) was decided with the direction by this court to decide the question of release of salary and payment by D.I.O.S. Concerned. In compliance thereto the D.I.O.S. By the impugned order in question dated 3rd May, 1997 has indicated that the petitioner has never joined the college as Assistant Teacher. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this court that affidavit on behalf of Sri Raj Kumar Sharma, Associate District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur working at the relevant time as Prabandh Sanchalak/ Administrator of Public Higher Secondary School, Sapla Begumpur, Saharanpur had indicated in para 4 that the petitioner was duly appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher and the appointment order was issued and the petitioner has given his joining report to the D.I.O.S. On 24.4.93. In reference to the averments made in para 5 the D.I.O.S. permitted the petitioner to join his duty and the petitioner has joined his duty. Other paragraphs from 6 to 10 are relevant and are supporting the cause of the petitioner. The averments made in the counter affidavit in the writ petition no.32506 of 1995 by the D.I.O.S. Has also been averred which are referable and are supporting the cause of the petitioner. The documents enclosed as Annexures 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 with the affidavit of the review petition also referred the facts and circumstances and the cause supporting that the petitioner was appointed and was allowed to join and had worked, however these records were not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order dated 3rd May, 1997 by the concerned D.I.O.S.. This situation is not clear as the impugned order in question might have been passed after considering the relevant records in the office of the D.I.O.S.. The present impugned order has made the situation disputed. This situation is not clear as the impugned order in question might have been passed after considering the relevant records in the office of the D.I.O.S.. The present impugned order has made the situation disputed. In these circumstances, it is relevant that the documents which were available at the time of passing the order dated 15.4.99 were in existence and were brought to the notice of the court or not ? Therefore, the order dated 15.4.99 passed in writ petition no.19063 of 1997 is reviewed and the writ petition no. 19063 of 1997 shall be heard on the available documents and on the merits of the case and after considering further affidavits/material/report filed by the respondents and the petitioner at subsequent stage. Therefore, the Director of Education, Intermediate Sri Sanjay Mohan is directed to scrutinize all the documents available in the writ petition and the subsequent documents which may be adduced to him on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of the respondents and shall file the affidavit in the present writ petition by the end of July, 2003. List on 26th of August, 2003 for further hearing. Certified copy of this order shall be given free of cost to Sri S.S. Sharma learned Standing counsel within three days and on payment of usual charges to Sri V.K. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner who in addition to the communication sent by Standing counsel, shall communicate to the officials concerned.” 18. Interim directions were issued in the petition after the review petition was allowed calling upon the Deputy Director Education to submit a report. The Deputy Director Education submitted a report dated 17th January, 2004 commenting adversely against the respondent no. 1. The District Inspector of Schools had also filed an affidavit dated 22nd August, 2003 in the writ petition. The report dated 17th January, 2004 came to be challenged through an amendment application dated 25th April, 2004 whereafter the parties were directed to exchange affidavits. 19. The writ petition remained pending but it appears that due to some inadvertence an order was passed on 26th August, 2008 on the review application dismissing it in default. This order appears to have been passed in ignorance of the order dated 7th July, 2003 whereby the review petition had already been allowed and was not pending. The counsel for the respondent no. This order appears to have been passed in ignorance of the order dated 7th July, 2003 whereby the review petition had already been allowed and was not pending. The counsel for the respondent no. 1 also moved an application on 8th December, 2014 after six years for setting aside the order dated 26.08.2008 without mentioning the details of the order dated 07.07.2003. Fortunately, the said restoration application was allowed on 18th May, 2015 but all these orders were passed without noticing the order dated 7th July, 2003. 20. It is in this background that the writ petition came to be finally heard and was allowed on 2nd January, 2018. The respondent no. 1 not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Court moved a modification application which was allowed on 8th March, 2018 against which the present two special appeals have been filed, one by the State through the District Inspector of Schools Saharanpur and the other by the Management of the Institution praying for setting aside the impugned judgment. 21. There is one more relevant fact that deserves mention and which may have an impact on the present proceedings, namely, Satya Pal Singh had approached the Deputy Director Education who passed an order on 30th January, 2000 rejecting his claim. Writ Petition No. 37244 of 2000 was filed by him that came to be dismissed on 16.12.2013 holding that Satya Pal had been appointed against a post which was not vacant. He then filed Special Appeal Defective No. 517 of 2014 and another Special Appeal No. 570 of 2014 was filed that came to be dismissed on 13th April, 2017 by a Division Bench of this Court. 22. This order in the special appeal examined the status of the post that was being claimed by Satya Pal Singh and held that it was a post of the CT Grade which came to be declared as a dying cadre. The Court came to the conclusion that appointment could not have been made on the said post in the LT Grade. 23. Before we begin to analyze the impact of the orders and judgment referred to hereinabove, it would be appropriate to delve into the nature of the post that had fallen vacant and the appointment of the respondent no. 1. 23. Before we begin to analyze the impact of the orders and judgment referred to hereinabove, it would be appropriate to delve into the nature of the post that had fallen vacant and the appointment of the respondent no. 1. It is not disputed that the post about which the dispute has arisen was occupied by one Subhash Singh who proceeded on long leave from 28.09.1992 to 28.09.1994. He did not join even thereafter. The post originally was of CT Grade but Subhash Singh had been continuing on the said post. It is not known as to whether Subhash Singh had completed ten years of service so as to award him LT Grade and treat the said post as that of L.T. Grade keeping in view the Government Order dated 4th September, 1990. The fact however remains that it was the said post against which the appointment was being claimed by the respondent no. 1 and which had also been claimed by Satya Pal Singh. Satya Pal Singh as noted above lost the battle finally after the dismissal of his special appeal but while dismissing the special appeal the judgment dated 13.04.2017 clearly refers to the fact that the said judgment shall not affect the rights of the respondent no. 1 which were pending consideration in the writ petition that has given rise to the present appeals. Consequently in view of the aforesaid exception made in the judgment of the Division Bench, the issue of the status of the post and the appointment of the respondent no. 1 have to be examined independently. 24. What we find is that the respondent no. 1 claimed to have been appointed in the LT Grade. In the previous round of litigation, the affidavits exchanged between the parties nowhere indicate any dispute about the post being that of the LT Grade. It is for the first time that in the proceedings after the review petition was allowed on 7th July, 2003 that the respondent-authorities started asserting that the post occupied was of CT Grade, and therefore, the respondent no. 1 could not claim his salary in the LT Grade. Prior to that in all the orders that have been quoted and extracted hereinabove and also the affidavits filed, no dispute was raised by the appellants about the status of the post being that of the LT Grade. 1 could not claim his salary in the LT Grade. Prior to that in all the orders that have been quoted and extracted hereinabove and also the affidavits filed, no dispute was raised by the appellants about the status of the post being that of the LT Grade. Nonetheless even assuming for the sake of arguments that upon the departure of Subhash Singh on leave, the post remained that of a CT Grade, then in that event also after the CT Grade was declared a dying cadre, the said post was never treated to have vanished by the appellants. The appointment of the respondent no. 1 was therefore against an existing post and the only objection raised by the District Inspector of Schools finally while passing the impugned order dated 3rd May, 1997 held that since the respondent no. 1 has not been able to establish his joining and continuous functioning on the said post, and since his signatures are not available on the attendance documents, therefore, the respondent no. 1 was not entitled to payment of salary. It is not the case of the appellants that the post had become non-existent and was not available. In this background, the only question that arises is that as to what would be the grade of salary to which the respondent no. 1 would be entitled to? The reason is that the procedure of selection and appointment of the respondent no. 1 has nowhere been held to be invalid under the order dated 3rd May, 1997 which is the order under challenge in the writ petition giving rise to this appeal. To the contrary, the order dated 13th April, 1994 read with the order dated 24th May, 1994 and the D.O. of the District Magistrate dated 30.04.1994, the appointment of the respondent no. 1 has been held to be valid. The report of the Deputy Director Education dated 17th January, 2004 which comments adversely against the respondent no. 1 is under challenge through the amendment application dated 25th April, 2004. The report of the Deputy Director Education nowhere refers to the findings recorded by the District Inspector of Schools and the conclusion that the appointment of the respondent no. 1 will be deemed to have been approved. 1 is under challenge through the amendment application dated 25th April, 2004. The report of the Deputy Director Education nowhere refers to the findings recorded by the District Inspector of Schools and the conclusion that the appointment of the respondent no. 1 will be deemed to have been approved. It has nowhere been considered either in the impugned order dated 3rd May, 1997 or in the report of the Deputy Director Education dated 17th January, 2004. The appointment of the respondent no. 1 was thus clearly saved as held in the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 24th May, 1994. 25. On the issue with regard to the functioning of the respondent no. 1 and his continuance, it is evident that the Principal of the Institution was resisting the continuance and the signing of the attendance register by the respondent no. 1. This willful act on the part of the Principal had been complained of by the respondent no. 1 and this was a malafide alleged for challenging the action of the appellants throughout the litigation. The District Inspector of Schools while passing the order dated 3rd May, 1997 has instead of making an enquiry into the same, shifted the burden on the respondent no. 1 to prove his continuance in the Institution. This approach of the District Inspector of Schools is absolutely incorrect when the allegation is that it was the Principal of the Institution who had been resisting the joining and continuance of the respondent no. 1. There was no willful default on the part of the respondent no. 1 in not going to the Institution. The District Inspector of Schools also lost sight of the fact that a Class-IV employee of the same Institution, namely, Satya Pal Singh had been set up to contest the claim of the respondent no. 1 and who lost the battle as indicated above. In the above background, it is therefore evident that the issue of continuance, working and receiving payment of salary had to be examined from this angle which was not done by the District Inspector of Schools while passing the order dated 3rd May, 1997 that was under challenge. 26. Once the post is available, the selection and appointment is valid then the only issue which had to be examined was whether it was the fault of the respondent no. 26. Once the post is available, the selection and appointment is valid then the only issue which had to be examined was whether it was the fault of the respondent no. 1 or that of the Principal of the Institution or the authorities in denying the rightful claim of the respondent no. 1. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has found that the affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 32506 of 1995, no such contest was raised against the claim of the respondent no. 1. The learned Single Judge has also held that while the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of, the respondent no. 1 had been allowed to represent his cause complaining against the Principal who had prevented him from signing the attendance register. Instead of initiating an independent enquiry into the allegation against the Principal, the District Inspector of Schools relied upon the evidence produced by the Principal himself and pass the impugned order. The learned Single Judge was therefore fully justified in arriving at the conclusion that the respondent no. 1 had been prevented from performing his duties. It is thereafter that the order dated 3rd May, 1997 was quashed. The learned Single Judge also rightly held that the rival claim of Satya Pal Singh stood extinguished. 27. In our considered opinion for all the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment dated 02.01.2018 of the learned Single Judge does not require interference to that extent. 28. However the conclusion about the working of the respondent no. 1 for the purpose of regularization seems to have been over stated as this was not the subject matter of dispute in the petition and therefore, to that extent the impugned judgment deserves to be modified. 29. It appears that since the first respondent had not been granted all the reliefs as claimed by him, a Modification Application No. 2 of 2018 was filed and the same was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 8th March, 2018. The same is also impugned in both the appeals. It is here that we find that the learned Single Judge slightly exceeded in jurisdiction in entertaining the modification application after having finally delivered the judgment on 2nd January, 2018. The same is also impugned in both the appeals. It is here that we find that the learned Single Judge slightly exceeded in jurisdiction in entertaining the modification application after having finally delivered the judgment on 2nd January, 2018. A modification would ordinarily not lie as the learned Single Judge after delivering the judgment dated 2nd January, 2018 became functus officio qua the case in question except for entertaining a review application or a correction application. The modification application was neither a review application nor was it a correction application. It could not be treated as a review application, inasmuch as, there was no error apparent on the face of record. To the contrary, additional reliefs were prayed for and the same has been granted by the learned Single Judge through the modification application. The learned Single Judge proceeded to rely on judgments that were in relation to the exercise of powers under the review jurisdiction and also the inherent powers to prevent miscarriage of justice. The learned Single Judge appears to have been influenced by the words that the High Court had the power to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. In our considered opinion, this was not permissible to the extent of granting further reliefs keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Upadhyay & Company Vs. State of U.P. & Others 1999 (1) SCC 81 . Paragraph no. 16 of the said judgment is extracted hereinunder:- “16. We also agree with the Division Bench of the High Court that the order dated 3.5.1996 does not require any clarification. In fact the attempt of the petitioner was to get the order reviewed. Since there was no error apparent on the face of the record the petitioner termed his petition as one for clarification. The Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed it rightly.” 30. The learned Single Judge however has treated the comment made on the working of the petitioner in the second last paragraph of the judgment dated 2nd January, 2018 to be an error apparent on the fact of the record. We do not find that to be a ground of review and even if it were, there was no occasion for modifying and granting further reliefs through the modification application. It was for the respondent no. We do not find that to be a ground of review and even if it were, there was no occasion for modifying and granting further reliefs through the modification application. It was for the respondent no. 1 to file an appeal if any grievance remained unredressed. The procedure therefore adopted by the learned Single Judge is not in conformity with law. The said relief could have been granted while passing the original judgment on 2nd January, 2018 but not through a modification application which in our opinion was not a review application. 31. At the same time, what we find is that even though the order on the modification application dated 8th March, 2018 deserves to be set aside, yet the respondent no. 1 would be entitled to certain reliefs as a consequence of the quashing of the order dated 3rd May, 1997. We are aware of the fact that this is not an appeal by the respondent no. 1 who was the petitioner in the writ petition. At the same time in order to do substantial justice between the parties and keeping in view the fact that the litigation has taken almost 25 years before this Court for determining the rights of the respondent no. 1, we deem it fit, proper and expedient in the interest of justice to issue directions while partly allowing the appeal. 32. We, therefore, partly allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 8th March, 2018 passed on the modification application but at the same time we direct that the respondent no. 1 would be entitled to all consequential benefits in view of the order dated 3rd May, 1997 having been quashed namely his right to receive salary which we reiterate as 50% of the arrears with effect from the date of the financial sanction granted by the Account Officer on 30th June, 1993. The respondent no.1 was wrongfully prevented from discharging his duties in the Institution as his appointment was valid. This would also be in consonance with law, inasmuch as, the District Inspector of Schools had been intimated for grant of approval and the period of one week had expired as contemplated under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order resulting in the deemed approval of the respondent no. 1. Consequently, the respondent no. 1 would be entitled to 50% of the salary from the said date and the respondent no. 1. Consequently, the respondent no. 1 would be entitled to 50% of the salary from the said date and the respondent no. 1 shall be allowed to function in the Institution and be paid his salary accordingly. 33. It will be open to the competent authority to consider the question of regularization and consequential continuance of the respondent no. 1 in the Institution that may be permissible as per the Rules framed under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 which shall be done within a period of three months. The appeal is therefore partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and the judgment dated 02.01.2018 stands modified accordingly.