Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46764-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 291 of 2016 Appellant :- Shailendra Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Secondary Education And 7 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Yogendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dr. R.S. Pandey Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. By means of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 10.5.2016 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 2642 (S/S) of 1999 and 5116 (S/S) of 2007. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that a writ petition bearing no. 2642 (S/S) of 1999 was filed by the appellant seeking salary for the post of 'Daftari' in Aided Intermediate College on which he claimed to have been appointed and an interim order was passed in the said case on 16.11.1999 in pursuance to which the claim of the petitioner was considered and it was rejected by a detailed order dated 30.7.2007. 3. In nutshell, a Regional Committee headed by the Joint Director, Education rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 30.7.2007 on the ground firstly that there was no post of 'Daftari' sanctioned on 16.3.1991 when the petitioner claims to have been appointed. Secondly, no advertisement, selection etc. took place as per rules for appointment of the petitioner against any such post. Thirdly, the post of 'Daftari' is a promotional post therefore, the claim of the petitioner of having been directly recruited on the said post is absolutely without any basis and illegal. Fourthly, on enquiry the Manager of the Institution and the DIOS had submitted reports denying any such appointment of the petitioner on any such sanctioned post of the 'Daftari'. This led to the filing of another writ petition bearing no. 5116 (S/S) of 2007, which was by the petitioner challenging the said order. Both the petitions were connected and have been decided by a common judgment dated 10.5.2016, which has been impugned herein. 4. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the reasons given in the order dated 30.7.2007 has not found the claim of the petitioner to be tenable. He has not found any error in the order passed by the Regional committee dated on 30.7.2007. Accordingly, he has dismissed both the writ petitions. 5. The submission advanced by Sri Yogendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner before us was that though there was no post of 'Daftari' on 16.3.1991 subsequently it was created on 11.4.1995 and thereafter the services of the petitioner were regularized by the DIOS vide order dated 24.1.1996, however, on being asked to demonstrate the provision of law under which the regularization had taken place, Sri Mishra could not place before us any such rule. On being further pointed out that the post of the 'Daftari' was a promotional post, Sri Mishra could not deny the said fact. Sri Mishra has not been able to satisfy us as to how he came to be directly appointed against a promotional post. He could also not satisfy us as to how, if his original appointment was not against any sanctioned post his services could have been regularized subsequently that too on the promotional post of 'Daftari'. We also asked him as to whether any advertisement had taken place which may have led to the selection and appointment of the appellant/petitioner, as per rules, no such document could be placed. 6. In view of the totality of facts and circumstances noticed hereinabove and as mentioned in the order dated 30.7.2007, which has been upheld by the learned Single Judge and after going through the decision of the learned Single Judge for the reason already given therein, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same in a intra court appeal. 7. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Anuj Singh Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench