JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri B.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 to 5, Sri Amarendra Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the opposite party No.6 and Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party No.7. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training (S.C.E.R.T.), Lucknow, the opposite party No.2, addressing to the District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow (in short D.I.O.S.), which is contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, whereby it has been directed that the petitioner be permitted to submit his joining at Christian College of Physical Education, Golaganj, Lucknow (here-in-after referred to as the Institution) and he be paid salary strictly in accordance with law. However, by means of the subsequent order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the opposite party No.2 addressing to the D.I.O.S., which is contained as Annexure No.23 to the writ petition, it has been categorically indicated that in compliance of order dated 09.05.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.9180 (S/S) of 2018 the order dated 19.07.2019 has been passed directing that the petitioner be permitted to submit his joining on the post of Officiating Principal and he be paid salary strictly in accordance with law. 3. The combined reading of Annexure No.1 and Annexure No.23 of the writ petition, which are orders dated 28.02.2020 and 03.03.2020, passed by the same authority i.e. the opposite party No.2 addressing to the same authority i.e. the D.I.O.S., Lucknow the simple direction has been issued to permit the petitioner to submit his joining on the post of officiating Principal in the Institution in question and the petitioner be paid salary and other benefits. Therefore, this court is unable to comprehend as to why the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition), as it does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. This Court on the first date of admission on 16.06.2020 had however asked the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to justify for issuance of these two orders within a gap of 2-3 days but the same could not be clarified and even by filing counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit this has not been explained properly. 4. This Court on the first date of admission on 16.06.2020 had however asked the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to justify for issuance of these two orders within a gap of 2-3 days but the same could not be clarified and even by filing counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit this has not been explained properly. 4. The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the Government Order dated 03.02.1981, one post of Lecturer and one post of Instructor for the course of diploma in Physical Education has been sanctioned in the Institution in question. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer on 10.02.1981 on adhoc basis and worked as such on that post till 15.05.2004. The vacancy of the Principal occurred for the reason that the then Principal proceeded on long leave on 15.05.2004. Therefore, the petitioner was permitted to work as Officiating Principal till 20.10.2016. However, vide order dated 21.10.2016 the petitioner was repatriated on the post of Lecturer and the opposite party No.7 was permitted to be posted as Officiating Principal. Since the petitioner was senior from opposite party No.7, therefore, he represented before the D.I.O.S. and the D.I.O.S. cancelled the order being passed in favour of the opposite party No.7 in respect of Officiating Principal of the Institution in question and permitted the petitioner vide order dated 16.11.2016 to discharge the duties of Officiating Principal. 5. The controversy of seniority and entitlement for the post of officiating Principal between the petitioner and the opposite party No.7 continued for substantial period as those facts are not necessary to be discussed in this order but what is relevant is that one writ petition of the petitioner bearing Writ Petition No.9180 (S/S) of 2018 was pending consideration before this Court on the same issue. 6. On 09.05.2019, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised objection in the aforesaid writ petition by submitting that the enquiry is pending consideration before the opposite party No.2, who is the Competent Authority to approve the appointment and termination of the teachers and other staff members of the Institution run by the opposite party No.5, therefore, the direction may be issued to the opposite party No.2 to pass final order in the enquiry proceedings. On the consent of all the parties of the Writ Petition No.9180 (S/S) of 2018, this Court vide order dated 09.05.2019 disposed of that writ petition. The order dated 09.05.2019 is as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred counter affidavit of opposite party no.4 i.e. District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow, which has been filed on 27.4.2019 referring para-4 (xi) and para-4 (xiii), which are being reproduced herein below:- "4. (xi). That it is submitted that in the matter of petitioner, the enquiry proceedings are going on at the level of opposite party no.2 i.e., the Director, State Council for Educational Research and Training, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, who is competent authority to approve the appointment and termination of teachers and other staff members of the Institution run by opposite party no.5. The opposite party no.2 is also competent to allow the financial grant for the purposes of salary etc. in the said Institution. 4. (xiii). That it is submitted that till date, the opposite party no.2 i.e., the Director, State Council for Educational Research and Training, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow has not taken any decision on the proposal of the opposite party no.5/ Committee of Management of the Institution, whereby it has taken decision to terminate the temporary and non-substantive services of the petitioner." Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the matter is still pending before the Director, State Council for Educational Research and Training, U.P., Lucknow, who is the competent authority to approve the appointment and termination of the Teachers and other staff members of the Institution run by opposite party no.5, therefore, direction may be issued to the competent authority to take a decision in the matter with promptness. Sri Amarendra Kumar Bajpai has submitted with vehemence that the District Inspector of Schools has not properly indicated the legal position in Para-4 (xi) and para-4 (xiii) inasmuch as in the given circumstances, the matter could have not been said to be pending before the Director. Therefore, while taking appropriate decision, opposite party no.2 shall also deal this point seeking reply from the District Inspector of Schools concerned. Therefore, while taking appropriate decision, opposite party no.2 shall also deal this point seeking reply from the District Inspector of Schools concerned. Considering the aforesaid innocuous prayer, which finds support in the counter affidavit of the District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow, I hereby direct the Director, State Council for Educational Research and Training, U.P., Lucknow, opposite party no.2, to conclude the proceedings, which are said to have been pending before him, with expedition, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this Court. It is made clear that while passing this order, this Court has not dealt with the merits of the issue, therefore, opposite party no.2 shall pass an independent order without being influenced from the findings of this Court and communicate the decision thereof to all the parties. It is needless to say that while taking decision, opposite party no.2 shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management concerned. In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of." 7. In compliance of order dated 09.05.2019 passed in re: Writ Petition No.9180 (S/S) of 2018, the opposite party No.2 passed a detailed order dated 19.07.2019, which is contained as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. 8. By means of order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the opposite party No.2, each fact and circumstances of the controversy in question has been considered and dealt with properly. One relevant fact was taken into account that vide order dated 15.09.2017 the Committee of Management of the Institution dispensed with the services of the petitioner on the report of the opposite party No.7. Further, the opposite party No.7 was appointed on the post of Lecturer on 15.08.1985 whereas the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer on adhoc basis on 10.02.1981 and has worked as Officiating Principal with effect from 15.05.2004 to 20.10.2016. Further, the petitioner after being appointed on the post of Lecturer on adhoc basis on 10.02.1981 has continuously discharged his duties for 35 years. The opposite party No.2 has therefore held that despite the fact that the petitioner was senior than opposite party No.7 adjusting the opposite party No.7 in place of the petitioner as an Officiating Principal is against the law. The opposite party No.2 has therefore held that despite the fact that the petitioner was senior than opposite party No.7 adjusting the opposite party No.7 in place of the petitioner as an Officiating Principal is against the law. Besides, the appointment of both i.e. the petitioner and the opposite party no.7 was approved by the Director of Education, U.P. on 24.11.1986 and at that point of time the length of service of the petitioner was six years and six months more than the opposite party No.7. Therefore, the opposite party No.2 has held that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances treating the opposite party No.7 senior from the petitioner is against law, so the direction has been issued to treat the petitioner senior to opposite party No.7 and permit him to be posted as officiating Principal with effect from 21.10.2016 and all the proceedings and subsequent action taken by the Committee of Management against the petitioner are not tenable in the eyes of law being illegal and, therefore, the same is liable to be cancelled. 9. In view of the aforesaid findings, the opposite party No.2 has held that prima-facie the claim of opposite party No.7 to the effect that he be permitted to hold the post of officiating Principal is not acceptable. Therefore, the petitioner be reinstated in service and his arrears of salary be released and the salary of opposite party No.7 be also released, granting approval to this effect. As opposite party No.2 is a Competent Authority, as has been admitted in the counter affidavit of the D.I.O.S., Lucknow filed in Writ Petition No.9180 (S/S) of 2018. 10. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the opposite party No.2 has communicated the aforesaid order to all the concerning authorities including the Committee of Management of the Institution on 23.07.2019, as the said communication has been enclosed as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has also informed the order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the opposite party No.2 to the Committee of Management of the Institution on 24.07.2019 (Annexure No.RA-6) making request that the petitioner be permitted to discharge the duties of officiating Principal and he be paid his salary and arrears of salary but no order has been passed by the Committee of Management. Again on 26.07.2019 the petitioner preferred reminder representation, which is contained as Annexure No.RA-7. Both the aforesaid representations have been preferred through registered post as postal receipts have also been enclosed with the rejoinder affidavit. 12. The opposite party No.2 has also issued a lettter dated 23.07.2019 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition) sanctioning the grant of Rs.50:00 lakhs for making payment of salary to the petitioner and to the opposite party No.7. The petitioner has also preferred a representation to the D.I.O.S. on 22.07.2019 (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition) making request that in compliance of order dated 19.07.2019 appropriate orders be passed so that he could submit his joining on the post of officiating Principal and arrears of salary could be released to him but to no avail. The petitioner again preferred reminder representation on 24.08.2019 (Annexure No.9 to the writ petition) to the opposite party No.2 and the D.I.O.S. for passing appropriate orders in compliance of order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the opposite party No.2. Again, the reminder representation dated 16.09.2019 was preferred by the petitioner to the D.I.O.S., which is contained as Annexure No.10 to the writ petition. Again on 03.03.2020 (Annexure No.11 to the writ petition), the petitioner preferred a representation to the opposite party No.2 making request that appropriate orders be passed so that the order dated 19.07.2019 passed by him could be complied with. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however submitted that the D.I.O.S., Lucknow has written a letter dated 20.08.2019 and 21.08.2019 to the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution (Annexure Nos.12 and 13 to the writ petition) asking to make compliance of order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the opposite party No.2 with the warning that if the petitioner is not permitted to discharge the duties, the Committee of Management will have to face the consequences. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on one hand, the Committee of Management of the Institution has not made compliance of order dated 19.07.2019 and on the other hand, the opposite party No.7 has commented on the order passed by the opposite party No.2 in a wrong perspective, therefore, the D.I.O.S. has called explanation from the opposite party No.7 through letter dated 16.09.2019 (Annexure No.15 to the writ petition) issued to the Committee of Management of the Institution. 15. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that despite regular correspondences being made by the D.I.O.S. with the Committee of Management of the Institution the compliance of order dated 19.07.2019 has not been made. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.19 to the writ petition, which is a letter dated 11.09.2019 issued by the opposite party No.2 to the D.I.O.S., Lucknow indicating the fact that by means of order dated 19.07.2019 and 23.07.2019 the directions were issued to permit the petitioner to serve on the post of officiating Principal and salary and arrears of salary of the petitioner and the opposite party No.7 be released but no compliance of the aforesaid directions has been made. Further, since the order dated 19.07.2019 has been passed in compliance of order of this Court dated 09.05.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.9180 (S/S) of 2018, therefore, flouting the directions being issued by the order dated 19.07.2019 issued by the opposite party No.2 would be the disobedience of the order and of this Court also. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.21 of the writ petition, which is a letter dated 09.01.2020 issued by the D.I.O.S. addressing to the Manager (by name) of the Committee of Management of the Institution in question indicating all the relevant facts and circumstances of the issue in question observing that since the compliance of order dated 19.07.2019, passed by the opposite party No.2, has not been made for more than six months, therefore, the Institution in question may be kept under single hand operation. 18. The opposite party No.2 has issued a letter dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure No.23 to the writ petition) whereby it has been categorically indicated that the said authority adjudicated the issue in question finally vide order dated 19.07.2019 in compliance of order dated 09.05.2019 passed by this Court and the compliance thereof has not been made, therefore, he has directed that the petitioner be at-once permitted to discharge the duties of officiating Principal and salary of the petitioner and other teachers and employees of the Institution be paid. 19. 19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite the petitioner has been superannuated on 01.11.2020 and while getting the benefit of session completion, he would be continuing in service till the end of education session i.e. till 30.06.2021, he has not been permitted to discharge the duties of officiating Principal in compliance of order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the opposite party No.2. Not only the above, the petitioner has not been paid his arrears of salary and regular salary in compliance of order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the opposite party No.2. Therefore, the writ petition may be allowed and the direction may be issued to the authorities concerned to make compliance of order dated 19.07.2019 in its letter and spirit thereby providing him the arrears of salary and regular salary for the post of officiating Principal of the Institution in question till the date of his actual retirement and he be permitted to discharge the functioning of officiating Principal in the Institution in question. 20. One counter affidavit has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel on 30.09.2020 on behalf of opposite party Nos.2, 3 & 8 supporting the contents of order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the opposite party No.2. 21. In the counter affidavit of opposite party No.7 i.e. Mr. J.J. Joseph, the facts and circumstances which have been considered by the opposite party No.2 in its letter dated 19.07.2019 have been narrated. In his counter affidavit, the opposite party No.7 has disputed the claim of the petitioner and also objected against the order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the opposite party No.2. It is made clear that by means of counter affidavit the legality of the order dated 19.07.2019 may not be assailed by the opposite party No.7, for that, he could have approached the appropriate authority strictly in accordance with law. Further, by means of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 19.01.2021 the opposite party No.7 tried to set up his claim for the post of officiating Principal of the Institution in question but by means of this writ petition this Court is not going to decide the controversy relating to the claim of the opposite party No.7 on the post of officiating Principal, therefore, those submissions may not be considered. 22. 22. In this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in compliance of order dated 09.05.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.9180 (S/S) of 2018 the opposite party No.2 has finally adjudicated the controversy vide a detailed order dated 19.07.2019 and the said order has not been assailed by any of the parties and despite the service of that order upon the concerning opposite parties including the Committee of Management of the Institution, the compliance of that order has not been made and since the order dated 19.07.2019 has been passed in compliance of order of this Court, therefore, the opposite parties may be directed to make compliance of order dated 19.07.2019 in its letter and spirit. 23. The opposite party No.7 by means of second supplementary counter affidavit dated 29.01.2021 has brought on record the letter dated 20.01.2021 preferred by the opposite party No.2 to the D.I.O.S. (Annexure No.SCA-3) whereby a sum of Rs.25:00 lakhs was earmarked for the petitioner, but as per the opposite party No.7, since the petitioner did not turn up to join his duties in the Institution, therefore, the said amount could not be paid to him. This fact does not appear to be bonafide inasmuch as the petitioner has demonstrated so many correspondences that just after getting the copy of order dated 19.07.2019 he approached the Committee of Management of the Institution time and again for submitting his joining on the post of officiating Principal and for getting salary thereof and this fact has been taken into cognizance by the Superior Authorities i.e. the opposite party No.2 and the D.I.O.S. in their respective letters. 24. In the counter affidavit of the Committee of Management of the Institution dated 02.02.2021, it has been categorically indicated that since the earlier writ petition of the petitioner bearing Writ Petition No.9180 (S/S) of 2018 wherein the termination order dated 15.09.2017 was assailed, has been decided vide order dated 09.05.2019 directing the opposite party No.2 to adjudicate the issue finally, therefore, the termination order dated 15.09.2017 would be treated as intact and the petitioner would be treated as terminated employee pursuant to the resolution dated 15.09.2017 issued by the Committee of Management of the Institution. The aforesaid observation does not appear to be proper and bonafide inasmuch as while adjudicating the controversy in question finally, the opposite party No.2 has considered the termination order dated 15.09.2017 of the petitioner and has held that such order is not justifiable in the eyes of law and the same is against the statutory prescription of law, therefore, such order has been cancelled with the direction that the petitioner shall be treated as officiating Principal with effect from 21.10.2016. Undoubtedly, the order dated 19.07.2019 has not been assailed by the Committee of Management of the Institution by now. Therefore for that purposes, the direction so issued vide order dated 19.07.2019, in compliance of order dated 09.05.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.9180 (S/S) of 2018, shall be treated to have attained finality. Hence, the direction of the order dated 19.07.2019 should be abide by in its letter and spirit. 25. One reply on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 to 5 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner has been filed on 10.02.2021 and the deponent thereof is D.I.O.S., Lucknow. Surprisingly, the D.I.O.S. has not indicated anything regarding the couple of correspondences being made at his end for making compliance of order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the opposite party No.2, which has been annnexed in the writ petition vis-à-vis those correspondences which have been made by the D.I.O.S. with the opposite party No.2 and the Committee of Management of the Institution which clearly shows that the petitioner has approached the Committee of Management for submitting his joining on the post of officiating Principal in terms of order dated 19.07.2019. However, vide para-6, it has been indicated that the petitioner has not approached the Institution for joining, as informed by the Manager of the Institution. Further, the petitioner has enclosed the letters dated 24.07.2019 and 26.07.2019 as Annexure No.RA-6 & RA-7 along with postal receipts with the rejoinder affidavit filed on 22.01.2021 and while indicating the fact that the petitioner has not submitted his joining, as informed by the Manager, those letters have not been taken into account by the D.I.O.S., which cannot be understood. 26. 26. Not only the above, the same deponent has preferred a letter dated 09.01.2020 (Annexure No.21 to the writ petition) addressing to the Manager (by name) of the Committee of Management of the Institution indicating all the relevant facts of the controversy in question by issuing warning that the Institution in question shall be kept under single hand operation as the direction of the Competent Authority dated 19.07.2019 has not been complied with for the last six months. Therefore, it cannot be understood that under what circumstances the view of the same D.I.O.S. has changed drastically within a passage of time, say, in one and half years. 27. Further, even the stand of opposite party No.2 issuing the order dated 20.01.2021 (Annexure No.A-4 of the affidavit filed by the D.I.O.S.) can not be understood whereby a sum of Rs.25:00 lakhs which was kept reserved for making payment of the dues of the petitioner, has been released for making payment of the salary of the teachers and employees of the Institution in question. The aforesaid order dated 20.01.2021 has been issued by the opposite party No.2 disposing of the letter of D.I.O.S. dated 01.01.2021 (Annexure No.A-3 of the affidavit filed by the D.I.O.S.). 28. The facts and circumstances of the issue in question are quite surprising inasmuch as earlier the opposite party No.2 adjudicated the issue finally vide order dated 19.07.2019 in compliance of order dated 09.05.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.9180 (S/S) of 2018 and intimation of the said order has been provided to all the respective authorities vide order dated 23.07.2019 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) and directed those authorities including the Manager (by name) of the Committee of Management of the Institution to make compliance of order in its letter and spirit by permitting the petitioner to serve on the post of officiating Principal in the Institution in question with effect from 21.10.2016 and he be paid salary and arrears thereof. Now, the view of opposite party No.2 is altogether different for the reasons best know to him. 29. Learned counsel for the respective parties have informed that the order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the opposite party No.2 has not been assailed before the appropriate authority or competent court of law till date. At the same time, it is also admitted case that the compliance of order dated 19.07.2019 has yet not been made. 29. Learned counsel for the respective parties have informed that the order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the opposite party No.2 has not been assailed before the appropriate authority or competent court of law till date. At the same time, it is also admitted case that the compliance of order dated 19.07.2019 has yet not been made. The opposite party No.2 and the D.I.O.S., Lucknow has issued couple of orders to the authority concerned for making compliance of the order dated 19.07.2019 in its letter and spirit, but to no avail. The petitioner has also preferred a representation to all the Competent Authorities including the Manager (by name and by post) of the Committee of Management of the Institution in question for compliance of order dated 19.07.2019 in its letter and spirit, but to no avail. Even the D.I.O.S. vide letter dated 09.01.2020 has issued warning to the Manager (by name) of the Committee of Management of the Institution in question to the effect that the Institution in question and its affairs shall be kept under single hand operation, as the compliance of order dated 19.07.2019 has not been made for more than six months. 30. It appears that all serious efforts of the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 and the D.I.O.S., Lucknow, went in vain and the Committee of Management has not permitted the petitioner to submit his joining as officiating Principal in terms of order dated 19.07.2019 and he has not been paid any salary or arrears of salary till date. Undisputedly, the requisite fund for making such payment to the petitioner has been sanctioned and shall remain intact with the Competent Authority till 20.01.2021. All of sudden instead of getting the order dated 19.07.2019 complied with in its letter and spirit by passing coercive orders strictly in accordance with law, the D.I.O.S. has shifted his stand and started saying what the Committee of Management has been saying since the order dated 19.07.2019 has been passed. All of sudden instead of getting the order dated 19.07.2019 complied with in its letter and spirit by passing coercive orders strictly in accordance with law, the D.I.O.S. has shifted his stand and started saying what the Committee of Management has been saying since the order dated 19.07.2019 has been passed. Despite the representations being enclosed by the petitioner along with the postal receipts that he has approached to the Competent Authorities including the Manager of the Committee of Management in question, the D.I.O.S. has believed that the petitioner has not submitted his joining in the Institution in question for the reasons best known to him as the reasons thereof cannot be understood by any stretch of imagination inasmuch as if any Competent Authority passes any order in favour of any person which is beneficial for him as he shall not only be getting the reinstatement on the post of officiating Principal but shall be getting regular salary and arrears thereof as to why he shall not be submitted his joining in the Institution in question. As to what the petitioner would be gaining if he does not submit his joining in compliance of order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the opposite party No.2. Since the order dated 19.07.2019 was not assailed before the Competent Authority or competent court of law by now and the order dated 19.07.2019 has been passed in compliance of order dated 09.05.2019 of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.9180 (S/S) of 2018, therefore, the Committee of Management had got no other option except to permit the petitioner to submit his joining on the post of officiating Principal thereby treating him the officiating Principal with effect from 21.10.2016 and the petitioner should be paid not only the arrears of salary but also his regular salary as and when the same falls due. However, since the petitioner has been superannuated on 01.11.2020, therefore, he may not be permitted to hold the post of officiating Principal on or after 01.11.2020 but he shall continue in service as Lecturer till the conclusion of this education session, as per law. 31. However, since the petitioner has been superannuated on 01.11.2020, therefore, he may not be permitted to hold the post of officiating Principal on or after 01.11.2020 but he shall continue in service as Lecturer till the conclusion of this education session, as per law. 31. The D.I.O.S. preferred a letter dated 01.01.2021 to the opposite party No.2 indicating the letters dated 18.02.2020 and 21.07.2020 of the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution whereby it has been averred that the petitioner has not submitted his joining in the Institution, therefore, his services have been terminated. The guidelines has been asked about a sum of Rs.25:00 lakhs which has been kept reserved for the petitioner for making payment of his dues. In the aforesaid letter, neither the date of termination has been indicated nor the fact as to whether such termination has been approved by the Competent Authority has been indicated, only vague averments regarding termination of services have been given, which prima-facie appears to be uncalled for. Actually, this is an order of D.I.O.S. and if the D.I.O.S. is unaware about any termination order passed after the order dated 19.07.2019 of the opposite party No.2 the said termination would have not been effected before taking prior approval from the Competent Authority. Therefore, the apparent error has been committed by the D.I.O.S. in the letter dated 01.01.2021. 32. Since the earlier termination order dated 15.09.2017 has been cancelled by the opposite party No.2 vide his order dated 19.07.2019, therefore, only a subsequent termination order could have been passed. The petitioner is absolutely unaware about any termination order referred in the order dated 01.01.2021. 33. Since this letter dated 01.01.2021 has been addressed to the opposite party No.2, therefore, it was incumbent upon the opposite party No.2 to verify the fact of termination first and also verify the reason as to why the petitioner has not submitted his joining despite the favourable order being passed by him on 19.07.2019 but the opposite party No.2 has also acted in a mechanical manner and believing on the factum of termination as indicated in the letter dated 01.01.2021 of the D.I.O.S. directed on 20.01.2021 to the D.I.O.S. to release a sum of Rs.25:00 lakhs in favour of the Institution for making payment of salary of the teachers and other employees of the Institution in question. The inaction on the part of D.I.O.S. as well as the opposite party No.2 could be understood but these are the serious state of affairs 34. In view of what has been considered and directed above, I hereby allow the writ petition directing the opposite party Nos.1 to 5 to pass appropriate orders compelling the opposite party No.6 to permit the petitioner to serve on the post of Lecturer in the Institution in question and treat him Lecturer with effect from 01.11.2020 till the date of his retirement providing him the session benefit. It is also directed that the petitioner shall be treated as officiating Principal of the Institution in question with effect from 21.10.2016 to 30.10.2020 and he shall be paid arrears of salary in terms of order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the opposite party No.2. 35. The compliance of this order shall be made within a period of three months from today, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the dues from the date it accrue till the date of its actual payment. 36. No order as to costs.