Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45891 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 55658 of 2013 Petitioner :- Puspendra Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadh Narain Rai Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Awadh Narain Rai, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned counsel for respondents. 2. Impugned order dated 20.06.2013 was passed in pursuance of an order dated 09.10.2012 passed by this Court in Writ 65197/2006 and relevant part of it is quoted below :- “Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. The representation of the petitioner was rejected on 30.6.2001 by the District Basic Education Officer, but the direction was given by the High Court on 23.5.2006 to consider the representation of the petitioner. If the representation has to be decided merely on the basis of order dated 30.6.2001 because the representation of the petitioner had already been rejected, then it was futile exercise to to issue direction by the High Court on 23.5.2006. The direction was issued after the order dated 30.6.2001 was challenged before the High Court and the District Basic Education Officer was required to consider the matter afresh. After the said direction of the High Court the representation was not liable to be rejected merely on the ground that earlier the representation of the was rejected on 30.6.2001 by the District Basic Education Officer. There is no finding recorded by the Secretary U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad respondent no.2 to the effect that whether there was appointment of the petitioner by the then District Basic Education Officer and the appointment letter was issued on 12.2.1997 and whether the petitioner was entitled for the benefit under the Government Order. If the appointment of the petitioner was made by the then District Basic Education Officer along with the other Assistant Teachers and employees then whether the petitioner was entitled for the payment of salary of untrained Assistant Teacher till he completed requisite training like other teachers who were appointed along with the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid discussion , since there is no finding and it has not been considered that whether the petitioner was appointed on 12.2.1997 along with other teachers by the then District Basic Education Officer and whether the petitioner was entitled for the benefit under the Government Order dated 3.12.2004, 1.2.2000 and 24.2.2002 or not. Hence the respondent no.2 is directed to consider the matter afresh by a reasoned order, considering the fact whether the appointment was made by the then District Basic Education Officer along with the other Assistant Teachers and employees on 12.2.97 and was entitled for the benefit of the Government Order dated 1.2.2000, 24.4.2002 by the Government and on 3.12.2004 by the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Board, Allahabad. The representation has to be considered afresh expeditiously preferably within a period of two months after furnishing certified copy of this order. Accordingly this petition is allowed. No order as to cost.” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the impugned order, aforesaid direction was not complied with and on basis of a strange ground that petitioner does not possess TET Certificate, without taking note that such examination came into existence in the year 2010 whereas petitioner was appointed way back in 1997, has returned an erroneous finding that appointment letter of petitioner was forged and fabricated without any substance. Relevant part of impugned order is quoted below :- " जजलल बबजसक शशकल अजधकलरर एटल नब अपनब कलरलरलर कब पत ससखरल/पदद०/1124/2013-14 शदनलसक 18.05.2013 दलरल सपष शकरल हह शक- 1- शर धलरलजरत शलकर पपत शर चदखबललल कक सहलरक अधरलपक पलथशमक शवदललर बगवलस शव०कब० गसजडपणडवलर पर कलरलरलर आदबश सस० / 80 / शनरप०/96-97 पतलसक 5734-37 शदनलसक 06.12.1996 कब दलरल इनकक शहशकक रदगरतल सर०पर०एड० हदनब कब फलसवरप ततकललरन जजलल बबजसक शशकल अजधकलरर दलरल शनरत वबतन 850 पर शनरपशक पदलन कक गरर। 2- शरमतर अलकल सकसबनल पपतर शर पबमशसकर सकसबनल दलरल बर०टर०सर० 2000 कक पररकल वरर 2002 मम उतररर कक गरर जजसकब कम मम बर०टर०सर० पररकल उतररर अभरजथररय कब सलथ शरमतर अलकल सकसबनल कक शनरपशक आदबश शदनलसक 19.12.2012 कक ससचर कमलसक 40 पर पल०शव० बरकलल शव०सब० सदरय पर ततकललरन जजलल बबजसक शशकल अजधकलरर वबतनकम 4500-125-7000 मम कक गरर। जजलल बबजसक शशकल अजधकलरर एटल नब अपनर उपरपक आखरल मम सपष शकरल हह शक रलचर कक शनरपशक आदबश शदनलसक 02.12.1997 पसररत अवहध / फजर एवस कस टरशचत हह। समरकल जजलल बबजसक शशकल अजधकलरर एटल कक आखरल, रलचर दलरल पसतपत पतरलवबदन सब सपष हद रहल हह शक रलचर कक शनरपशक सहलरक अधरलपक कब पद पर नहह हहई हह। रह आशरर कल शवरर हह शक शबनल शनरपशक कब पकरर लगभग 16 वरर सब गशतमलन हह और रलचर दलरल अपनर शनरपशक कब समबनध मम पलथरनल पत / पतरलवबदन न पसतपत करकब बलर बलर वबतन कक मलसग कक जल रहर हह। इसर उदबशर कक पसशतर हबतप रलचर दलरल अनबकय रलशचकलएस मल० उचच नरलरललर मम रदजजत कक गरर हह, जजसमब समर- समर पर नरलरललर कब आदबशलनपसलर पकरर कल शनसतलरर ततकललरन अजधकलरररय दलरल शकरल जलनल पतलवलर मम पररलशकत हद रहल हह। रलचर कल पतरलवबदन शवभलगरर शनरमय कब परब हह। अशनवलरर बलल शशकल अजधकलर अजधशनरम कब अनतगरत शबनल टर०ई०टर० उतररर शकरब कदई भर अभरथर बबजसक शशकल परररद कब शनरसतरलधरन ससचलजलत शवदललरय मम शनरपशक हबतप अहर नहह हह। उसर पकलर 11 अगसत, 1997 सब पसवर दर गरर समसत पकलर कक समककतलएस समलप कक जल चपकक हह। रलचर शनरपशक हबतप शकसर भर दशल मम अहर नहह हह। चसशक जजलल बबजसक शशकल अजधकलरर एटल दलरल सपष शकरल गरल हह शक रलचर दलरल पसतपत शनरपशक आदबश शदनलसक 02.12.1997 पसररतत अवहध / फजर एवस कस टरशचत हह. रलचर कल पतरलवबदन बलहरन हदनब कब कलरर शनरसत शकरब जलनब रदगर हह। शनररर उपरदक समरकल कब आधलर पर रलचर दलरल रदजजत रलशचकल ससखरल 65197/2006 मम पलररत शनररर शदनलसक 09.10.2012 कब अनपपललन मम रलचर कल पतरशवदन असवरकलर शकरल जलतल हह।" 4. Learned counsel for respondents has tried to support impugned order, however, he is not able to convince this Court that directions passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation was complied with. 5. Considering aforesaid submissions, I am of opinion that impugned order is passed without taking note of directions passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation, therefore, impugned order in present form does not survive and matter is remitted back to concerned respondents to pass a fresh order strictly in the light of directions passed by this Court in the order dated 09.10.2012. 6. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Sinha_N. Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad