Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74973 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 60806 of 2011 Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Verma And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Khare,Diwan Saifullah Khan,Gufran Ahmad,Pradeep Singh Sengar Counsel for Respondent :- Parmeshwar Yadav Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the order dated 16.09.2011 passed by Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Allahabad with further request not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioners as Class-IV employees in the Institution. 3. As there are total 15 posts of Class-IV employees were sanctioned out of which 9 post were lying vacant. On the basis of necessity, permission was sought from the competent authority and as permitted on 20.11.2006, the 7the respondent issued notification on 28.12.2006. After due selection, the petitioners were selected based on merits. The 7th respondent forwarded selection list to the 4th respondent vide letter dated 08.01.2007 whereby the 4th respondent has forwarded to the 3rd respondent and vide communication dated 18.09.2009 has accorded approval to the petitioners' selection. Subsequently, the petitioners joined the Institution and discharging their duties to the satisfaction of the 7the respondent. 4. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed by one Ajay Kumar Yadav and another challenging the appointment of the petitioners, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 26.05.2010 with the direction to the Director of Education to consider the representation made by the petitioners in the said writ petition and decide in accordance with law. Based on the same, notices were issued to all the five employees. While taking hyper technical ground, the appointment of the petitioners was interfered by Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. Allahabad, vide impugned order dated 16.09.2011. In fact, the same was assailed by the two petitioners by way of filing Writ-A No.65148 of 2011 and three petitioners have filed the present writ petition. While disposing of Writ-A No.65148 of 2011, this Court issued the following directions on 17.03.2023: "15. Learned counsel for petitioner while substantiating his arguments relied upon the judgment rendered by full Bench of this Court passed in Special Appeal nos. 970, 1593 of 2010, Special Appeal no. 82 of 2009, Special Appeal nos. 1638 and 1815 of 2010 decided on 09.10.2010 in leading case of Rajiv Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others wherein Division Bench of this Court decided the similar controversy with regard to appointment of Group D Employees Service Rules, 1986 which would not apply for the procedure to be adopted for selecting and appointing class IV employees in privately managed and recognised educational institutions. 16. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the records appended along with petition as well as with the counter-affidavit preferred by the State respondents it is crystal clear that order dated 16.09.2011 which impugned the present petition is not having the grounds for rejecting the claim of the petitioner as mentioned in the counter-affidavit, whereas the order dated 16.09.2011 has not dealt with the confirmation order with regard to the appointment pertains to the petitioners passed by Regional Level Committee dated 04.09.2010 and 18.09.2010 which was sent by the District Inspector of Schools for seeking approval vide letter dated 21.08.2008. While assailing the order dated 10.09.2011, petitioners categorically demonstrated all the four grounds taken up by the respondent no. 2 as illegal under para 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the instant writ petition which needs not to be elaborated again since the same has already been mentioned in the above mentioned paras where the contention of the petitioner has been recorded. New ground which has been taken up by the respondents at the very first time while filing the counter- affidavit was with regard to the dead post over which the appointment of the petitioner has been made whereupon the Regional Level Committee has already accorded the financial approval and the petitioners received salary for near about two years cannot be permitted since the same is not available in the order dated 16.09.2011 passed by respondent no. 2 which impugned the present petition. 17. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and having full agreement with the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in case of Rajiv Kumar (supra), order dated 16.09.2011 passed by respondent no. 2 is hereby set aside. Respondent no. 2 to 4 are hereby directed to reinstate the services of the petitioners and ensure the monthly salary as admissible to them from the date of their joining. However, it is made clear that the petitioners will not be entitled for back wages for the period in which they have not rendered their services in favour of Amar Shahid Bhagat Singh Inter College, Rasara, District Ballia. The above mentioned exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the respondent no. 2 to 4." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the above orders has submitted that the entire facts are identical and is with regard to the same selection in the same Institution. The said aspect has not been disputed by learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also on perusal of the orders passed by this Court in the above writ petition, the impugned order dated 16.09.2011 passed by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Allahabad is set aside. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed in the same terms. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 rkg (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad