Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86787-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 311 of 2025 Appellant :- State Of Up And 2 Others Respondent :- Mohammad Naseem Uddin And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Nagendra Kumar Pandey,Rajeshwar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Mohit Behari Mathur ALONGWITH Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 319 of 2025 Appellant :- State Of Up And 2 Others Respondent :- Mohammad Nasimuddin And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeshwar Tripathi,S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Mohit Behari Mathur Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. These appeals were filed after the expiry of 666 days of the limitation period. By the judgment under challenge, learned Single Judge has allowed the claim of the respondent-petitioner in respect of appointment offered to the post of a class-IV employee. An issue arose with regard to legality of the appointment offered to the writ petitioner. It was noticed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ-A No. 10376 of 2004, filed by the writ petitioner himself. Learned Single Judge issued following directions in the matter: "In the facts and circumstances of the case, two issues require consideration i. e. (a) whether on the date the petitioner was appointed there was any other vacancy available on Class-IV post in the Madarsa except for the one which has been disclosed to have become available due to termination of services of Mohd. Aslam or not, and (b) whether Nazir Ahmad had retired on any date subsequent to the employment of the petitioner/reinstatement of Mohd. Aslam or not. Both issues are basically issues of fact and require examination of documents. This Court finds that in the given set of facts there cannot be any mandamus for reinstatement of the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to represent his grievance before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari within two weeks from today along with certified copy of this order, who shall examine all aspect of the matter, including those noticed herein above, and shall pass a reasoned speaking order, preferably within six weeks from the date the representation is made. It is clarified that if any subsequent vacancy has become available, the same shall be advertised afresh and the petitioner will be at liberty to apply." Pursuant to direction of learned Single Judge, the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment was examined by the District Basic Education Officer who passed an order in favour of the writ petitioner on 21.04.2011/03.05.2011. By this order, District Basic Education Officer returned a specific finding that the appointment offered to the writ petitioner was against the vacancy created due to retirement of Naseer Ahmad. Further, finding was returned that the appointment of writ petitioner was not against the post earlier occupied by Mohd. Aslam. This order of District Basic Education Officer has now attained finality. Neither the State has challenged it nor any higher authority has interfered in it. The only challenge to this order was at the instance of the Committee of Management which also failed with dismissal of the writ petition. No special appeal has been filed by the Committee of Management. In such circumstances, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to enforce the order passed by District Basic Education Officer passed in favour of the writ petitioner cannot be interfered with at the instance of State, especially since the order passed by its own authority has attained finality. Both the special appeals lack merit and are dismissed. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 K.K. Maurya Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad