JUDGMENT M. Katju and Poonam Srivastava, JJ.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is the Committee of Management of A.S. Post Graduate College, Mawana, District Meerut. It is affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Singh University. (Meerut University, Meerut).
3. The respondent No. 4 Dr. Poonam Rani was appointed as ad-hoc Lecturer in Commerce by resolution of the Committee of Management dated 28.10.1988 and Vice-Chancellor granted approval to the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as temporary Lecturer in Commerce vide Annexures-1 and 1-A. She was initially appointed for a period of three months vide letter dated 28.10.1988 which is Annexures-2 and 2-A to the writ petition. Thereafter by resolution of the Committee of Management the appointment was extended upto 31.3.1989 vide Annexures-3 and 3-A. Subsequently the respondent No. 4 filed a Writ Petition No. 1706 of 1989 in which an order was passed directing that she will be continued in service till a regularly selected candidate by the Commission is available. This order was subsequently vacated on 27.2.1990. Thereafter the respondent No. 4 filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31005 of 1992, challenging the order dated 23.6.1992, which was finally allowed a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition).
4. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge shows that he directed regularization of the service of the respondent No. 4 within a period of one month from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the Director, Higher Education. It was further directed that artificial breaks given to the petitioners service will be ignored and she will be deemed to have been in continuous service. It was further directed that the petitioner would be entitled for salary.
5. Against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner filed Special Appeal No. 439 of 1992 but that special appeal was withdrawn on 23.4.1997 vide Annexure-CA-5 to the counter-affidavit. Thereafter an application was filed for recalling the order withdrawing the special appeal but that application was rejected by a Division Bench. Consequently the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.7.1992 has become final and it cannot be now challenged.
6. The aforesaid judgment has directed for regularization of service of the respondent No. 4 within a month and payment of salary and deeming the petitioner to be in continuous service. It appears that despite this judgment, petitioner has not been paid salary and no order of regularization was passed.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.7.1992 was not complied with because Special Appeal No. 439 of 1992 had been filed against the said judgment in which an interim order was passed staying the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge. However, when the special appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.4.1997, the legal consequence was that the petitioner has to be deemed in service throughout. Once a stay order is vacated, in the eye of law it has to be deemed that it was never passed. Hence the petitioner is directed to pay salary of the respondent No. 4 for the period in question and regularise her in salary retrospectively in accordance with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
8. hence we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.