(1) Since point involved in both the writ petitions are interconnected, so heard and decided by the common judgment.
(2) Since Writ Petition No.7375 (S/S) of 2000 was dismissed as having become infructuous vide order dated 16.09.2019 and the petitioner has moved an application for recalling of the order alongwith delay condonation application, the order dated 16.09.2019 is recalled allowing the delay condonation application vide order of date passed in Writ Petition No.7375 (S/S) of 2000 on the application.
(3) Heard Sri V. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anurag Kumar Mauraya, learned State Counsel for Respondent No.1 and 2 and Sri Rahul Shukla, Sri J.K. Sharma, Sri Jyotinjay Verma, Sri S.B. Pandey and Sri Prashant Arora, learned counsel for the Respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5.
(4) The writ petition no.7375 (S/S) of 2000 has been filed by the petitioner for directing the opposite parties to release the salary of the petitioner alongwith consequential benefits from the treasury and also challenged the order dated 28th October,1999 i.e. addressed to the Respondent No.5, informing therein, that the Respondent Nos.5 is included in the list of grant-in-aid and the salary of Head Master and two assistant teachers is to be paid for that relevant documents may be provided. The petitioner further prayed for regularizing the services and inclusion of name in the list of regularly paid employees.
(5) During the pendency of the writ petition no.7375(S/S) of 2000, an advertisement dated 28.12.2003, was published in two daily news papers for selection of teaching and non-teaching staffs. The advertisement has been challenged by the petitioners by filing a Writ Petition No.370 (S/S) of 2004.
(6) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in Writ Petition No.370 (S/S) of 2004 an interim order dated 23.01.2004 has been passed, which is quoted hereinbelow:
".............Heard on application for interim relief.
There is no ground to interfere or stay the Advertisement dated 28.12.2003 but it is directed that if the petitioners are duly selected persons and working on the post of teachers, clerk and peon respectively in Shir Baba Bux Singh Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kishunpur, District Barabanki, they will not be dislodged only on the basis of the new selection till further orders of this Court."
(7) The petitioners in the present writ petitions have nowhere mentioned that they were duly selected as per the provisions of The U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment And Conditions Of Service Of Teachers) Rules, 1978 and The U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment And Conditions Of Service Of Ministerial Staff And Group 'D' Employees) Rules, 1984, wherein the detailed procedure has been provided, i.e. advertisement published in the news papers inviting applications, with the approval of BSA appointment is to be given, etc. whereas nothing has been mentioned in both the writ petitions that any procedure was followed prior to the appointment of the petitioners.
(8) On the other hand, learned counsel for the Management has informed that in pursuance of the selection made in the year 2004, the persons have been appointed after the approval by the BSA and they have been functioning since the year 2004, the learned counsel for the petitioners failed to dispute the same. The petitioners have neither challenged the selection nor the appointment or impleaded them as respondents in the array of opposite parties.
(9) The counter affidavits have been filed in the year 2004 by the BSA & Committee of Management with specific averments that the petitioners are not duly selected as per Rules 1978 and 1984, but the petitioners have not filed any rejoinder affidavit till date to dispute the said facts.
(10) After hearing learned counsel for both the parties in both the writ petitions, it is found that no interim protection has been granted in Writ Petition No.7375(S/S) of 2000 and in Writ Petition No.370 (S/S) of 2004, this Court while passing the interim order has said that there is no ground for interference in the advertisement, but it is directed that if the petitioners are duly selected, in their place no one shall be appointed, whereas the petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were selected as teaching and non-teaching staffs in the institutions by following the due procedure as per provisions of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment And Conditions Of Service Of Teachers) Rules, 1978 and The U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment And Conditions Of Service Of Ministerial Staff And Group 'D' Employees) Rules, 1984.
(11) The present writ petitions liable to be dismissed on the ground that petitioners were not appointed as per the procedure provided under the law. The duly selected persons are working. The petitioners neither challenged their appointment nor arrayed them as opposite parties in any of the writ petition.
(12) The writ petitions are devoid of merits and, hence, dismissed.
(13) A copy of this order shall also be placed on the record of Writ Petition No.7375 of 2000.
Order Date :- 8.1.2021 S. Kumar