HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 7687 of 2000 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for State. 2. Petitioners were admittedly appointed against short-term vacancies in pursuance of a resolution dated 18.08.1997, however, proposal was disapproved by impugned order dated 02.02.2000 by D.I.O.S., Kushinagar as there was ban imposed on such appointments. 3. This Court has passed an interim order dated 15.02.2000, which is quoted below :- "The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed on short-term vacancy on the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade after under going due process of Selection. The District inspector of Schools had declined to grant the approval of his appointment on the ground of ban imposed by the State Government on appointment of teachers. Issue notice to the respondents. The respondents no.1 and 3 are represented by the learned Standing Counsel. Let notice be issued to the respondent no.2 by registered post AD fixing a date in the week commencing 15th May 2000. Steps to be taken within two weeks. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : R.C. Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Arvind Tiwari And Others .....Petitioner(s) Distt. Inspector Of Schools And Others .....Respondent(s) Counter affidavit may be filed within six weeks and rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List it in the week commencing 15th May 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Mukseh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1996(2) UPLBEC 783 in, support of his contention that the bank is not applicable in regard to the appointment of the assistant teacher in short term vacancy. In view of the aforesaid decision, the operation of the impugned order dated 2.2.2000 passed by the District Inspector of Schools Kushi Nagar respondent no.1 (annexure 9 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed till further orders of this Court." 4. According to learned counsel for petitioners, petitioners are still enjoying fruits of interim order though he further submits that subsequently, their respective claim for regularization was rejected vide order dated 03.05.2025 on various grounds and a challenge to it by way of filing a Writ A No. 4417/2025 is still pending. 5. In aforesaid circumstances, Court finds that this writ petition may be disposed of on basis of interim order, however, it is made clear that order of disposal would not construe that appointment of petitioners were proper and it would be subject matter of above referred writ petition. 6. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations. May 12, 2026 N. Sinha WRIA No. 7687 of 2000 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad