JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition was filed on 12.02.2014 seeking the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.1.2014 passed by the Joint Director Faizabad as opposite party no. 4 contained as annexure no 1 to the writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner joining on the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit, and pay him salary regularly. (iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization u/s 33-B of U.P.S.E.S. Section Board Act, 1982" 3. By means of the impugned order dated 15.01.2014 the claim of the petitioner for regularization under Section 33-B of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 was declined on the ground that for the purposes of consideration for regularization a person should have been appointed having a satisfactory service, whereas, the petitioner's services had been terminated on 30.06.1996, therefore, there was no occasion to regularize her services. 4. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on Ad-hoc basis on 04.09.1989 on the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit). One Shri Muneshwar Bux Verma claimed a right of consideration for promotion against the said post. He filed a writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No. 6960 (S/S) of 1988 which was decided on 09.09.1991, a copy of the said judgment is annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. On a perusal of the said judgment what comes out is that the appointment of the petitioner on Ad-hoc basis was held to be illegal and having been made ignoring the claim for promotion of Shri Muneshwar Bux Verma. The right claimed by the petitioner on the said post came to an end by the said judgment by which Shri Muneshwar Bus Verma claim for promotion against the same post was upheld by this Court. Against the said judgment dated 09.09.1991 a Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19525 of 1991 was filed which was dismissed on 07.12.1995. The right claimed by the petitioner on the said post came to an end by the said judgment by which Shri Muneshwar Bus Verma claim for promotion against the same post was upheld by this Court. Against the said judgment dated 09.09.1991 a Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19525 of 1991 was filed which was dismissed on 07.12.1995. Consequently, the petitioner herein lost her claim to the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) on which she had been appointed on Ad-hoc basis. On 01.07.1996 her services were terminated as a consequence of the aforesaid proceedings. The said termination order is annexed as Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition. 5. This order was put to challenge by the petitioner by means of Writ Petition No. 3266 (S/S) of 1997 which was dismissed on 26.02.2013 on the ground that the matter having attained finality before the Supreme Court on dismissal of the petitioner's S.L.P. nothing survived for adjudication. The said judgment dated 26.02.2013 passed in the said writ petition was put to challenge by the petitioner in Special Appeal Defective No. 234 of 2013 wherein the argument of the appellant was that though initially appointed as Ad-hoc teacher, on completing the requirements of Section 33-B(a)(iii) of U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 she became eligible for being considered for regularization and that now there were two vacancies available in the college, therefore, her case can be taken up for regularization. The Division Bench noticed this submission in second paragraph of the judgment and thereafter disposed of the Appeal granting liberty to the appellant to submit appropriate application as per the prescribed procedure for consideration of her case by the Joint Director, Secondary Education within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving a copy of that order which would be considered on merit and appropriate orders shall be passed within a further period of four weeks. The order of the single Judge was modified to that extent. The Division Bench, though, ordered for consideration of the petitioner's claim, did not record any finding on merits as to whether the petitioner was eligible for consideration for regularization or for regularization. In any case, the direction was for consideration of the petitioner's claim. 6. On a consideration of such claim, the same has been rejected on 15.01.2014 as noticed earlier for the reasons already discussed above. 7. In any case, the direction was for consideration of the petitioner's claim. 6. On a consideration of such claim, the same has been rejected on 15.01.2014 as noticed earlier for the reasons already discussed above. 7. The only contention raised by Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner was that considering the language used in Section 33-B(a)(iii) of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982, the petitioner, even though, she has been out of service since 1996, is entitled to be considered for regularization, as, there is nothing in the language used in the aforesaid provision which prohibits or precludes consideration of a person who is not in service. With respect the Court does not agree with the contention of Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner for reasons stated hereinafter. 8. Section 33-B of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1982') reads as under:- "33-B. Regularisation of certain other appointments. With respect the Court does not agree with the contention of Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner for reasons stated hereinafter. 8. Section 33-B of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1982') reads as under:- "33-B. Regularisation of certain other appointments. - (1) 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 of Teaching grade on or before May 13, 1989 against a short term vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 and such vacancy was subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy; or (ii) was appointed by direct recruitment on or after July 14, 1981 but not later than June 12, 1985 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in the Certificate of Teaching grade through advertisement and such appointment was approved by the Inspector; or (iii) was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment on or after July 31, 1988 but not later than May 14, 1991 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18, [as it stood before its substitution by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Second Amendment) Act, 1992;] (b) possesses the qualification prescribed under or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921; (c) has been continuously serving the Institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of the commencement of the Act referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a); (d) is not related to any member of the management or the Principal or Head Master of the Institution concerned in the manner specified in the explanation to sub-section (3) of Section 33-A; (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. (2) (a) For each region, there shall be a Selection Committee comprising – (i) Regional Deputy Director of Education of that region, who shall be the Chairman, (ii) One officer holding a Group "A" post (specified as such by the State Government from time to time) in any department other than Education Department, to be nominated by the State Government, (iii) Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools of that region : Provided that the Inspector of the district shall be co-opted as a member while considering the case for regularisation of that district. (b) The Selection Committee constituted under clause (a) shall consider the case of every such teacher and on being satisfied about his eligibility and suitability in view of the provision of subsection (1) shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (3) recommend his name to the management for appointment under sub-section (1) in a substantive vacancy. (3) (a) The names of the teachers shall be recommended for substantive appointment in order of seniority as determined from the date of their appointment. (b) If two or more such teachers are appointed on the same date, the teacher who is elder in age shall be recommended first. (4) Every teacher appointed in a substantive capacity under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such substantive appointment. (5) A teacher who is not found suitable under sub-section (1) and a teacher who is not eligible to get a substantive appointment under that subsection shall cease to hold the appointment on such date as the State Government may by order specify. (6) Nothing in the Section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to substantive appointment if on the date of commencement of the Act referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1), such vacancy had already been fitted or selection for such vacancy has already been made in accordance with this Act." 9. The heading of the provision is - Regularisation of certain other appointments. The other appointments here means, the appointments not covered by other provisions preceding Section 33-B. 10. For the purposes of regularization the first and foremost requirement is that the person should have been appointed and his services should be continuing and subsisting at the time of consideration. The heading of the provision is - Regularisation of certain other appointments. The other appointments here means, the appointments not covered by other provisions preceding Section 33-B. 10. For the purposes of regularization the first and foremost requirement is that the person should have been appointed and his services should be continuing and subsisting at the time of consideration. A person who is not in job, especially, a person such as the petitioner who is out of job since 01.07.1996, his or her services could not be regularized under Section 33-B of the Act, 1982. The aforesaid condition is implicit in the aforesaid provisions and any other reading and understanding of it, would lead to absurdity and unreasonableness. Clause (iii)(c) of Section 33-B(1) says that any teacher etc. referred therein should have been continuously serving the Institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of the commencement of the Act referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) which is a reference to the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 as it existed prior to the amendment of Act, 1992 however it is not the intent that if a person was serving on the date of commencement of the Act but his right to continue as such was adjudicated against him consequent to which he ceased to serve since 1996 even then his services can be regularized subsequently after several years say in 2013 or 2014 that too when he had lost his right to continue on the post in question in the earlier round of litigation right up to the Supreme Court. The fact of the matter is that the right of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) was subject matter of the earlier proceedings and vide judgment dated 09.09.1991 passed in the writ petition filed by Shri Muneshwar Bux Verma (supra) it was categorically held that the petitioner did not have a right to the said post in view of the claim of Muneshwar Bux Verma, which had been ignored while appointing the petitioner, therefore, now, for the petitioner to say that based on the same appointment she should be considered and her services be regularized, would be against the letter and spirit of the judgment dated 09.09.1991 passed by this Court against which a Special Leave Petition of the petitioner was dismissed on 07.12.1995. The order terminating the petitioner's services on 01.07.1996 has attained finality between the parties. It would be absurd to allow regularization of the services of the petitioner after so many years after termination of her services, as, there were no services subsisting on the date of consideration for being regularized. 11. In fact, relief no. (ii) is to allow the petitioner to join on the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit and pay her salary regularly. This relief, if granted, would amount to ignoring the earlier decision between the parties by the Division Bench which was rendered on 09.09.1991 as referred hereinabove. This is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. The writ petition is dismissed.