Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53844 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 31681 of 2009 Petitioner :- Mithilesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Bahadur,Praful Bahadur Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.D. Tiwari Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on 28.6.1990 on the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade by the respondent no. 4 - Committee of Management. The petitioner joined his services on 1.7.1990 and the papers with regard to appointment of the petitioner was forwarded by the Committee of Management on 28.7.1990 and the Institution in question was brought on grant in aid on 1.4.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 17349 of 1992 for payment of salary. The aforesaid writ petition was pending, however, direction was issued to the District Inspector of Schools - respondent no. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary. The aforesaid claim of the petitioner was rejected by the District Inspector of Schools on 29.7.1992. On the aforesaid basis, supplementary affidavit was filed in the pending writ petition and thereafter on 3.9.1993 an interim order was passed by this Court in the pending writ petition for payment of salary. In pursuance thereof, the salary of the petitioner was released in September, 1993. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the above mentioned writ petition being Writ Petition no. 17349 of 1992 was finally disposed of by order dated 26.4.2000 directing for consideration of the regularization of the petitioner under Section 33-B of U.P. Secondary Education Services and Selection Boards Act, 1982. The aforesaid claim for regularization of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order dated 17.5.2004 passed by the Joint Director of Education (Madhyamik), Region IV, Allahabad - respondent no. 3 which, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, came to the knowledge of the petitioner in the year 2009 under the Right to Information Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that perusal of the impugned order dated 17.5.2004 would go to show that the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is receiving salary since September 1993. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 4.5.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 1059 of 2005 to submit that payment of salary has been delayed on account of pendency of the litigation. The claim of the petitioner for regularization cannot be rejected. It is submitted that the claim for regularization was required to be considered within the four corners of Section 33-B of U.P. Secondary Education Services and Selection Boards Act, 1982. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State submits that claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has been receiving salary since September, 1993. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State could not dispute the fact that the claim of the petitioner is required to be considered in accordance with Section 33-B of U.P. Secondary Education Services and Selection Boards Act, 1982. 4. It is to be seen that claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected on account of the fact that salary was being paid to the petitioner since September, 1993 although he was appointed in the year 1990. It is further to be seen that claim of the petitioner under Section 33-B of U.P. Secondary Education Services and Selection Boards Act, 1982 is required to be considered by the District Inspector of Schools recording a finding that whether the petitioner was validly appointed. Merely the fact that salary was being paid since September 1993 would not have any bearing unless the appointment proceedings of the petitioner are examined by respondent no. 3 in proper perspective. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.5.2004 passed by the Joint Director of Education (Madhyamik), Region IV, Allahabad - respondent no. 3 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent no. 3 for decision afresh within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Institution in question. 6. The writ petition is partly allowed. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 VMA Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad