JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. As per the office report dated 9th April, 2016 neither registered envelop nor, acknowledgement sent by the registered post to the respondent No.-5 has been received back. 3. In the circumstances, therefore, service of notice upon respondent No. 5 is deemed sufficient and the Court now proceeds to decide the matter. 4. The petitioner before this Court was selected and appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in LT grade on 26th April, 1992 by the Committee of Management against a substantive vacancy which had fallen vacant on account of selection and appointment of the then Principal of the institution, namely, Jagat Pal Singh in the year 1986. The papers after selection was forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, however he did not accord any financial approval forcing to the petitioner to file writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.-6623 of 1993 in which certain directions were issued on 15th April, 1993. While the matter remained pending before this Court, the District Inspector of Schools accorded financial approval to the petitioner's appointment vide order dated 5th July, 1995 and so according to the petitioner, the writ petition had got rendered infructuous and so was dismissed on 20th July, 2010. 5. It transpires from the pleadings that the petitioner's salary was paid till 1998 only and so consequently another writ petition being Writ Petition No.-50664 of 2000 was filed in which direction was issued on 24th November, 2000 commanding the authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate order thereupon. The Finance and Accounts Officer passed an order on 18th June, 2003 rejecting the representation of the petitioner filed for the purposes of payment of salary virtually questioning the appointment of the petitioner more especially on the ground of ban on the appointments in such institution. The petitioner again approached this Court vide writ petition No. 3657 of 2003 which was allowed and the order passed by the Finance and Accounts Officer dated 8th June, 2003 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the respondent No.-2, namely, the Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. Lucknow to pass appropriate detailed order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. 6. The Director of Education again rejected the claim of the petitioner vide detailed order dated 31st December, 2008 taking a ground that prior permission was not taken from the competent authority in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada and another v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and others, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551 and that the post was fraudulently taken to be vacant. 7. The basic ground, therefore was taken that there was no post in existence upon which the petitioner could have been appointed. This order dated 31st December, 2008 came to be challenged again vide writ petition being Writ - A No.-22809 of 2009, in which both these grounds were held to be untenable, firstly for the reason that in the Full Bench judgment in Radha Raizada it was made only prospective in its application and hence Committee of Management was fully empowered to make appointment; and secondly no prior permission to fill up the vacancy was required. The judgment had been delivered on 15th July, 1994 and the appointment of the petitioner had taken place way back in the year 1992, and so it was held not applicable in the light of the directions issued by the Full Bench itself. Further more relying upon the judgment of Ashika Prasad Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and others, 1998 (3) UPLBEC 1722 , the point canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner was that even notice board notification of vacancy was sufficient, was upheld by the Court. The Court also observed that the view taken in the judgment of this Court dated 28th July, 2006 was not accorded consideration by the authority while passing the order. Thus, the Court was of the final view that the validity of appointment could not have been gone into. As far as the procedural aspect of the matter was concerned, all that was required to be seen was as to whether there existed vacancy or not upon which the appointment of the petitioner could have been facilitated. 8. Thus, the Court was of the final view that the validity of appointment could not have been gone into. As far as the procedural aspect of the matter was concerned, all that was required to be seen was as to whether there existed vacancy or not upon which the appointment of the petitioner could have been facilitated. 8. The Court in its ultimate analysis reproduced the operative portion of the order which was passed in Writ Petition No.-44818 of 2002 filed by one Satyawan Yadav, who also set up a claim of the post in question and the Court recorded that Ram Kesh Yadav, namely the present petitioner, who was respondent No.-4 in the said petition, was appointed on the vacancy and was discharging duties as such. 9. In the circumstances, therefore, the Court directed that "only question is to be considered by the Committee to scrutinize the aspect of the petitioner's appointment against the then subsisting substantive vacancy only". The finding part of the operative portion of the order of this Court dated 19th February, 2015 is reproduced hereunder : “He submits that all requisite papers including the proposal of the Management, resolutions passed etc., were produced for consideration of respondent No.2 but unfortunately has not found favour with him. He has submitted that on an earlier occasion also a dispute had been raised by the respondents when it was contended that two persons viz., the petitioner and one Sri Satyawan Yadav were appointed against the vacancy caused by the promotion of Sri Jagatpal Singh. Addressing the same, Sri Satyawan Yadav appears to have filed a Writ Petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 44818 of 2002 (Satyawan Yadav Vs. Director of Education and others) which came to be dismissed on 20.04.2004. While dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court was pleased to record as follows:- "The Director has found that in the meantime Sri Ram Kesh Yadav respondent No.4 was appointed on the vacancy caused on account of appointment of Sri Jagatpal Singh, Assistant Teacher as Principal of the college and that Sri Ram Kesh Yadav is working since April, 1992 and had drawn salary from May 1997 to October 1998. Sri Ram Kesh Yadav also filed Writ Petition No. 50664/2000 which was disposed of with direction to the Director of Education (Secondary) to decide the representation." The Court is informed that the above judgment has attained finality. Sri Ram Kesh Yadav also filed Writ Petition No. 50664/2000 which was disposed of with direction to the Director of Education (Secondary) to decide the representation." The Court is informed that the above judgment has attained finality. If that be the above position, it is not known on what basis, the respondent No.2 could take a contrary decision or record conflicting statements while passing the impugned order. In light of the above discussion, it is apparent that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 31.12.2008 is quashed. However, considering the over all circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Regional Level Committee to scrutinize the aspect of the petitioner's appointment against a then subsisting substantive vacancy only and to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization under the provisions of Section 33-B of the U.P. Secondary Education Selection and Service Board Act 1982. This exercise be completed by the Committee within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The consequential relief sought by the petitioner would abide by the decision taken by the Committee aforesaid. The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms.” 10. Now after the matter got remitted to consider the factum of the existence of the vacancies which was claimed to be substantive in nature and if so found the consequential action for regularization of the petitioner in service, Regional Committee asked for a report from the District Inspector of Schools which came to furnished by him on 20th June, 2015. In the report the District Inspector of Schools very categorically recorded a fact that on account of selection and appointment of Jagat Pal Singh, the then Assistant Teacher in the institution on the post of Principal, LT grade post in question had consequently fallen vacant and that the Manager took appropriate steps to fill up the vacancy by appointing Ram Kesh Yadav, namely, the petitioner on 26th June, 1992 and that Ram Kesh Yadav was given joining by Committee on 28th April, 1992. Thereafter the detailed narrative that is contained in the report relating to the various petitions that were filed before this Court and directions issued from time to time including the direction for payment of salary etc. Thereafter the detailed narrative that is contained in the report relating to the various petitions that were filed before this Court and directions issued from time to time including the direction for payment of salary etc. But the relevant part of the report that has been referred to hereinabove with regard to the appointment of the petitioner and his joining is reproduced hereunder : “Bahudhandhi Inter College, Sonhita Jaunpur is a recognized educational institution that receivs aid up to the High School. The payment of Salary Act, 1971 and U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1982 are applicable to the institution. In view of promotion of Assistant Teacher Sri Jagat Pal Singh on the post of Principal, the post of L.T. grade had fallen vacant substantively. Sri Rakesh Yadav was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 26th April, 1992 by the Manager after conducting proceedings qua selection and appointment. Sri Ram Kesh Yadav has joined the institution on 28th April, 1992. In view of the payment not being made, Sri Ram Kesh Yadav filed writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.-6623 of 1993. In compliance of the order passed by the High Court dated 15th April, 1993, the approval order of appointment of Sri Ram Kesh Yadav was issued by this office vide letter No.1915-16/1997-98 dated 3rd June, 1997.” (English Translation by the Court) 11. After the report was received the Committee constituted for the said purpose under Section 33-C(2) proceeded to examine the matter of the petitioner from both angle: (i). Existence of the substantive vacancy; and (ii). Claim for regularization under Section 33-C of the Act No. 5 of 1992. 12. The Committee concerned has considered the report of the District Inspector of Schools and also the statement and submission advanced before it by the petitioner. Existence of the substantive vacancy; and (ii). Claim for regularization under Section 33-C of the Act No. 5 of 1992. 12. The Committee concerned has considered the report of the District Inspector of Schools and also the statement and submission advanced before it by the petitioner. The Committee of Management was also heard and in its analysis and finding part it has recorded that there was no proof available as to upon which vacancy the petitioner was given appointment and then no explanation has been offered by the Committee of Management as to under which circumstances it proceeded to fill up the vacancy in 1992 which had fallen vacant as back as in the year 1996 and then the Committee has proceeded to hold that the vacancy stood lapsed virtually in the light of the provisions as contained under Regulation 22 of Chapter II of Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 13. Learned Senior Advocate has questioned the findings returned by the Committee as perverse. Firstly, he argues that the sufficient document were available on records inasmuch as the report of the District Inspector of Schools itself acknowledged that the vacancy that had fallen vacant on account of selection and appointment of Jagat Pal Singh as Principal by the Board, was sought to be filled up by making appointment of the petitioner resorting to the procedure prescribed for, by the Committee of Management. He submits that the District Inspector of Schools has also proceeded to record that the approval was granted by the District Inspector of Schools. He has also taken to the Court to a document which had been filed as Annexure – 1 to the papers forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools on 23rd January, 1992. This document regarding existence of vacancy absolutely demonstrates that vacancy had fallen vacant on account of the then Assistant Teacher, namely, Jagat Pal Singh, being selected as Principal by the U.P. Secondary Regulation Service Selection Board. 14. He submits that the financial approval had been accorded by the District Inspector of Schools upon those very documents which were duly got verified by the then District Inspector of Schools and those documents were very much available on record upon which the report has been submitted by the District Inspector of Schools. 14. He submits that the financial approval had been accorded by the District Inspector of Schools upon those very documents which were duly got verified by the then District Inspector of Schools and those documents were very much available on record upon which the report has been submitted by the District Inspector of Schools. He submits that those very documents have been referred to in paragraph 7, 8 and 9 of the writ petition and the paragraphs which have been very vaguely replied to, inasmuch as the contents thereof have not at all been denied. He further submits that regarding existence of vacancies, specific averments have also been made in paragraph 37 of the writ petition which too have not been denied and only the order of the Committee has been referred to, which is impugned herein this petition. Regarding the other point that has been taken in a disguised way or in a language which can be said to be camouflaged one, so as to be referable to Regulation 20 of Chapter II of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The petitioner’s counsel has relied upon the authority in the case of Yogendra Nath Singh v. District Inspector of Schools and another, 1991 (1) AWC 562 . 15. Meeting to above two arguments, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that two persons, namely, Satyawan Singh and the petitioner had come to join on the post in question and, therefore, there was an issue with regard to the legality of appointment. However, he could not deny the report submitted by the District Inspector of Schools and also the papers filed along with writ petition which are also available with the office of the District Inspector of Schools in the original file upon which the approval had been granted. He has sought to justify the order passed by the Committee for the reasons assigned therein. 16. On the question of continuance of the petitioner, he has filed certain certificates of the Principal of the institution which record that he has been working in the institution. The certificates are of the year 2015 just prior to filing of the writ petition, more especially the last one dated 5th May, 2015 written by the Manager of the institution and 12th February, 2014 by the Principal of the institution. The certificates are of the year 2015 just prior to filing of the writ petition, more especially the last one dated 5th May, 2015 written by the Manager of the institution and 12th February, 2014 by the Principal of the institution. The management has not represented itself despite service of notice from this Court and therefore, it would be taken that it has admitted the case of the petitioner. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records and having discussed the facts and previous order passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation, I proceed to examine the facts returned by the regularization/ regional level committee dated 18th November, 2015. Upon perusal of the decision I find that after referring to the earlier order of this Court dated 19th February, 2015 passed in writ petition No. 22809 of 2009 and the submissions of petitioner, Manager of Committee of Management and that of District Inspector of Schools, the following findings have been returned : (i) Jagat Pal Singh, an Assistant Teacher having been selected as Principal of the institution took charge of Principal on 26th December, 1986 and thus consequently post of Assistant Teacher fell substantively vacant on 26th December, 1986. (ii) From the documents filed by petitioner it was clear that there was a resolution adopted by the Committee of Management on 26th April, 1992 and vide resolution No.-2 thereof petitioner’s appointment proposal was passed against a vacancy. (iii) It was not clear from the documents against which vacancy petitioner was appointed and no document was available to demonstrate that Management proposed to fill up vacancy after six years of it falling substantively vacant. (iv) No documents were available regarding creation of post, substantive vacancy, prior permission of District Inspector of Schools, advertisement details of other candidates if appeared before selection Committee. 18. First two findings (i) & (ii) fully support the claim of petitioner regarding vacancy in the institution and resolution of Committee of Management in favour of petitioner. The report of District Inspector of Schools concerned, also records very categorically: fo