JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. In Paragraph '8' of the writ petition, it has been stated that the respondents are interfering with the petitioner's right to continue on the post and are not deciding her representation, dated 18.8.1988, which is appended as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.
3. This Court by order, dated August 23, 1988 had directed that services of the petitioner shall not be dispensed with till the return of Smt. Rajbala Devi to the post on which the petitioner has been appointed or a regular candidate selected by the Board or any reserve pool Teacher becomes available for appointment or the services of the petitioner are terminated in accordance with law whichever is earlier.
4. The case of the petitioner is that one Smt. Rajala Devi was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher C.T. Grade in 1980. She was subsequently promoted in L.T. Grade on 25.6.1985. Thereafter the petitioner was appointed in the vacancy caused due to promotion of Smt. Rajbala Devi as Assistant Teacher C.T. Grade and her appointment on the said post was also approved. It is alleged that petitioner's working was sought to be disturbed by the respondents by making other appointment though she was entitled for regularisation.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition and the following interim order was granted by this Court on 23.8.1988 :-
"Issue notice.
Meanwhile, the services of the petitioner shall not be dispensed with till the return of Smt. Rajbala Devi to the post on which the petitioner has been appointed or a regular candidate selected by the Board or any reserve pool Teacher become available for appointment or the services of the petitioner are terminated in accordance with law whichever is earlier."
6. The Counsel for the petitioner states that none of the aforesaid contingencies mentioned in the order has occurred and as such the petitioner is getting her salary continuously. He also states that the petitioner has moved an application before the Competent Authority seeking payment of her salary in the revised pay scale with other benefits. It is further contended that the petitioner has also represented, vide representation, dated 11.10.2001 (Annexure-1 to Civil Misc. Application No. 59254 of 2002) that her services be regularised as per Section 33-A (1-A) as amended by U.P. Ordinance No. 28 of 1991.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, the ends of justice will be served if the petitioner's representations, dated 18.8.1988 and 11.10.2001 are decided by the authority concerned.
8. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with direction to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, 1st Region, Meerut or Authority concerned to decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order along with copies of the aforesaid representations before the Authority concerned.
9. No order as to costs.