Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101077 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30063 of 2010 Petitioner :- C/M Maharaja Agrasen Inter College Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.M.Garg, Pratik Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.K. Yadav,Chandan Sharma,Swapnil Kumar,Vijai Tripathi Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. After hearing learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, this Court has passed the following orders on 28.04.2025: "1. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pratik Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. According to the contention of the petitioner - Institution, the 4th respondent has been selected on 29.06.2001 as lecturer vocal music. At that point of time, there was no vacancy available in the Institution. Further only vacancy of L.T. Grade arose on 30.06.2002. As such there was no sanctioned post of lecturer vocal music available in the petitioner's Institution and the same was brought to the notice of the respondent - authorities whereupon District Inspector of Schools passed order on 30.04.2009 referring the matter to the Director of Education (Secondary) Education, U.P. Lucknow. No order has been passed and issue is still pending before the 2nd respondent. 3. Further, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the division Bench of this Court in the case of Satish Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others 2006 (4) ESC 2786 (All) (DB) wherein this Court has categorically held that advertised vacancy cannot be filled up from amongst candidates who have been selected in any previous selection. Hence, adjusting the 4th respondent in the petitioner - Institution is not only contrary to the said observations made by the division Bench but also not having sanctioned post in the petitioner - Institution. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents has not filed counter affidavit. As issue is to be answered by the State-respondents, at the request of the learned Standing Counsel, ten days' time is granted finally to file counter affidavit or else written instructions in the matter. 5. Further, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that considering the above said aspect of the matter, this Court has granted interim direction on 08.07.2010. 6. List this case on 13.05.2025. 7. In the meanwhile, it is needless to say that as proposal / recommendation has been made by District Inspector of Schools, the 2nd respondent may take appropriate decision as per Rules. If any decision is taken by the 2nd respondent, the same may be communicated to the petitioner thereafter." 2. Despite the abovesaid orders, the respondent no.2 could not be able to take any decision. 3. In view of the said circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent no.2 to take positive decision based on the proposal sent by District Inspector of Schools dated 28.02.2002, within a period of four weeks from today and communicate the same to the petitioner. 4. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad