HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 22140 of 2018 Court No. - 33 HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J. 1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Present writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 16.04.2014 passed by Director of Education (Secondary), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. 3. The whole controversy involved in this matter is that the post of Class-IV occurred on 31.01.2010 at fourth respondent-institution on retirement of one permanent employee Smt. Satya Devi. To fill the said post, when the District Inspector of Schools has not accorded any permission, the management has proceeded to fill up the said post of Class-IV employee and accordingly a notification was issued on 8.5.2013 and selection was held on 28.05.2013. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed in the fourth respondent- institution. The proposals were forwarded to respondent no.3 for approval. When the same was not acted, the principal approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 5771 of 2014. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 29.01.2014. Consequent to the same, the respondents have passed the impugned order on 16.04.2014 by rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition has been filed. 4. The main ground for rejection of the petitioner's claim is that his appointment is contrary to the amended Regulation 101, Chapter-III of Regulations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 dated 4.9.2013. According to the said amendment, the State has imposed ban by directing all educational institutions to fill up Class-IV post, except by outsourcing. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Kuldeep Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the amendment is of 4.9.2013 but by that date, the selection process has been completed and the petitioner has also been appointed in fourth respondent- institution. Hence, the same is not applicable to the selections which are made prior to the amendment. He further submitted that identical issue was considered by this Court in Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2015 5 AWC 4719 and held that the process of selection was initiated earlier to the amendment. Accordingly, the same is not applicable to the selection made prior to the amendment. The said aspect was considered by this Court in Writ A No. 22333 of 2018 (Smt. Neha Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), with following observations: "15. Hence, the first objection raised by the respondents in rejecting/ disapproving the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to the findings of this Court in Pati Ram Pal (supra) and as far as second objection is concerned, that issue was answered by the full bench in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) stating that where the proceedings are initiated for process of selection, the selections would be regulated by the Rules which are governed on that date. If any amendments, will only be applicable to the subsequent selection process. In the instant case, as the selection process was initiated much prior to the amendment made in March, 2018." 6. By considering the abovesaid law, the impugned order dated 16.04.2014 passed by Director of Education (Secondary), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow is set aside. The matter is remanded to the concerned authority to pass appropriate orders, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. October 8, 2025 Noman WRIA No. 22140 of 2018 2 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad