HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 20927 of 1999 Along with : 1. Writ - A No. 54643 of 2017: Arvind Kumar Shukla and another Versus District Inspector of Schools Jaunpur and 4 others 2. Writ - A No. 57723 of 2016: Pawan Kumar Tiwari Versus State of U.P. and 5 Ors. Court No. - 32 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents in all writ petitions. 2. This is a bunch of three writ petitions. 3. Writ A No. 20927/1999 was filed by three petitioners, viz. Arvind Kumar Shukla, Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Ramesh Chandra Yadav against orders dated 12.02.1999 and 16.02.1999 passed by D.I.O.S. concerned whereby their respective appointments were cancelled. 4. In Writ A No. 20927/1999, following interim order was passed on 24.05.1999 :- "Learned standing counsel appearing for Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhai Narain Tiwari, Arvind Kumar Singh, D.S.M. Tripathi, Indra Raj Singh, Manoj Kumar, S.K. Upadhyay, Vimal Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., P.N.Tripathi, Rajnish Kumar Srivastava Arvind Kumar Shukla And Others .....Petitioner(s) D.I.O.S. And Others .....Respondent(s) respondents no. 1 and 2 prays for and is granted four weeks' time for filing counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within another one week. List the petition for admission in week commencing 30th August, 1999. The petitioners are directed to serve respondent no. 3 and 4 by registered post A/D for which step is to be taken within a week. Respondents nos. 3 and 4 may also file a counter affidavit, if any, within the aforesaid period of four weeks. In view of the contention made that no opportunity was granted to petitioners before passing the impugned orders, operation of the impugned orders dated 12.02.1999 and 16.02.1999 passed by the respondent-1 at annexures 14 and 15 of the writ petition will remain stayed until further orders." 5. According to learned counsel for petitioners, petitioners have claimed that they have worked on basis of aforesaid interim order though learned counsel for respondent - Committee of Management has objected said submission. 6. On basis of documents available on record, it appears that petitioners have worked till 2010. Subsequently, there is no document that they have been paid salary. 7. Writ A No. 57723/2016 was filed by one Pawan Kumar Tiwari that his salary be released in pursuance of order dated 21.01.2015 passed by concerned D.I.O.S. in pursuance of directions passed by this Court in other writ petition. From perusal of contents of writ petition, it appears that no salary was paid to petitioner after September, 2009 and this writ petition remained pending without any interim order. WRIA No. 20927 of 1999 2 8. Subsequently, State-respondent has passed an order dated 03.10.2017 whereby appointment of petitioners viz. Arvind Kumar Shukla and Pawan Kumar Tiwari were terminated. Said order was challenged by way of filing Writ A No. 54643/2017 and admittedly, there is no interim order. 9. In aforesaid circumstances, outcome of Writ A Nos. 20927/1999 and 57723/2016 would depend upon outcome of Writ A No. 54643/2017. 10. Court takes note that petitioners have not worked undisputedly after 2010. 11. Argument of learned counsel for petitioners is that once an order of termination was stayed and writ petition was pending, no subsequent order can be passed terminating services of petitioners without taking note of it and it being an ex-parte order, is contrary to law also. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for Committee of Management submits that initial appointment was contrary to law since in a writ petition filed by one Vinod Kumar Yadav, there was a ban to initiate any new appointment though said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous in 2014 as well as he also submits that in the impugned order, it is mentioned that no post was available. 13. I have considered above submissions and perused the records. 14. Interim order passed in writ petition of year 1999 was implemented till 2010. Subsequently, it was not implemented and petitioners have never come up before this Court that same be implemented and since subsequent order of cancellation of appointment is entirely on different basis, therefore, on such ground, impugned order does not find to be faulty. 15. Now Court takes note of consideration in impugned order dated 27.09.2017 which is as follows :- "सुनवाई में वादी व ्ऺितवादीगण ्षारा िदये गये कथन तथा कायार्लय में उपलब्ध प्ऴजातों के पिरशीलन से स्प्ि हो रहा है िक मा० उच्च न्यायालय में योिजत िरट यािचका सं० सी- 60985/2010 ्ऺबन्ध सिमित भारतीय उच्चतर माध्यिमक िव्यालय सुल्तानपुर दिरयावगंज जौनपुर बनाम उ०्ऺ० राज्य व अन्य में मा० उच्च न्यायालय ्षरा पािरत आदेश िदनांक WRIA No. 20927 of 1999 3 14.03.2014 के अनुपालन में अमरनाथ वमार् िश्षा िनदेशक (मा०) उ०्ऺ० इलाहाबाद ्षारा िव्यालय की जनशि्व िनधार्रण के सम्बन्ध में आदेश िकया जो िनम्नवत् है। (iii) यािचका सं० 26307/2010 ्षुव नारायण िसह बनाम उ्तर ्ऺदेश राज्य व अन्य में पािरत मा० उच्च न्यायलय के आदेश िदनांक 22.05.2012 के समादर में शासनादेश िदनांक 22.02.2013 ्षारा िव्यालय की जनशि्व में 18 ्शेणीवार अनुमन्य पद की सीमा के अन्तगर्त एवं पदसृजन के सापे्ष िनयु्व िश्षक एवं िश्षणे्तर कमर्चािरयों को वेतन भुगतान िकया जाना पूणर्रूपेण िविधसम्मत एवं औिचत्यपूणर् है। इन 18 पदों से इतर पदों पर वेतन भुगतान िकये जाने का औिचत्य नहीं है। ्ऺबन्धक ्षारा िदये गये कथनानुसार ्ऺितवादी संख्या 3 व 4 अरिवन्द कु मार शुक्ला व पवन कु मार ितवारी की िनयुि्व िव्यालय में िनधार्िरत 18 पदों के इतर की गयी है। ्ऺितवादी संख्या 3 व 4 अरिवन्द कु मार शुक्ला व पवन कु मार ितवारी पिरचारक का वेतन भुगतान िनधार्िरत जनशि्व के अितिर्व पद पर होने के कारण िकया जाना िविधसंगत नहीं होगा। िनणर्य उपरो्व तथ्यों के आलोक में ्ऺितवादी संख्या 3 व 4 अरिवन्द कु मार शुक्ला पिरचारक एवं ्शी पवन कु मार ितवारी पिरचारक की िनयुि्व िव्यालय में िनधार्िरत जनशि्व 18 पदों के इतर होने के कारण वेतन भुगतान ्ऺदान नहीं िकया जा सकता। तद्नुसार मा० उच्च न्यायालय में योिजत यािचका सं0 4277/2017 कमेटी आफ मैनेजमेंट भारतीय उ०मा० िव्यालय सुल्तानपुर दिरयावगंज, जौनपुर बनाम स्टेट आफ यू०पी० में पािरत आदेश िदनांक 31.01.2017 का अनुपालन सुिनि्ात िकया जाता है।" 16. Admittedly, petitioners were heard before above order was passed and that it is well settled that no appointment can be made beyond sanctioned posts and petitioners were appointed beyond sanctioned posts (18 in numbers) and aforesaid facts were never brought on record in pleadings of writ petition of year 1999. 17. Court also takes note of averments of the writ petition, however, does not find any specific averment in regard to above referred issue on law and on fact that sanctioned strength was 18 posts was a perverse finding. 18. Otherwise also, Court finds that petitioners are out of service since 2010 i.e. more than 15 years and there is no continuity in service, therefore, in absence of any substantive material that impugned order whereby appointment of petitioners were found beyond sanctioned posts, WRIA No. 20927 of 1999 4 was erroneous on law as well as on facts, this Court has no reason to interfere with impugned order. 19. Accordingly, Writ A No. 54643/2017 is dismissed and consequently, Writ A Nos. 20927/1999 and 57723/2016 are also dismissed and its consequence shall follow. May 12, 2026 N. Sinha WRIA No. 20927 of 1999 5 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad