HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 59613 of 2017 Court No. - 38 HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J. 1. Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ratnakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajnish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the proposed-respondent Dr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of mandamus commanding the respondent-authorities to take a decision in the matter of appointment of the petitioners as lecturers in the college in accordance with law and with further prayer to make payment of salaries including arrears of salaries to the post of lecturers to the petitioners. 3. Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were appointed on 22.09.1988 and their appointments were approved by District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur vide order dated 01.08.1989. The appointments were made based on the Government Order dated 15.06.1989. 4. The said approval order was recalled by District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur vide order dated 03.08.1989. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing the writ petition in 1989. As per interim order granted by this Court on 15.12.1989, the petitioners have been paid salaries from month of July, 1989 till November, 1989. 5. As there were litigations, certain writ petitions were filed by Dr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava and Mani Shanker Singh. The said writ petitions were dismissed on 22.12.1989. Apart from that, there were certain litigations also pending between the managements before Registrar (Societies). In view of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Radha Kant Ojha, Ratnakar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Dr. Harshu Prasad Pathak And Anr. .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. .....Respondent(s) the said dispute between the managements, salaries have again been stopped in 1990. Though the matter was taken up at the level of Hon'ble Apex Court and after final decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioners moved an application before Director of Education for continuation of their services and also payment of salaries but the respondents have not passed any order. Questioning the said inaction, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 6. Though the present writ petition has been pending since 2017 but the respondents have not taken any decision so far with regard to the claim made by the petitioners. 7. Sri Rajnish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the proposed- respondent has made his submissions that he has filed impleadment application on 07.03.2018 for impleadment of Dr. Ajay Kumar Srivasava as respondent no.5 in the array of the parties but the same application is still pending and his name is not also reflected in the cause list. 8. Learned counsel for the proposed-respondent has further submitted that there are certain writ petitions pending before this Court with regard to the claim of the proposed respondent Dr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava. He has also submitted that the proposed respondent Dr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava was also appointed in 1988. In fact, the dispute arose between the committee of managements wherein final decision has been taken by the committee of management in favour of the proposed respondent. Hence, the appointment of the proposed respondent Dr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava is legal. 9. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it reveals that no doubt, the petitioners as well as the proposed respondent were appointed in the institution and there are certain interim orders passed in favour of the petitioners and also proposed respondent but ultimately the competent authorities have to take decision finally based on records. 10. In the said circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the petitioners are permitted to make afresh representation with all relevant documents before the 2nd respondent within a period of two weeks and the proposed respondent Dr. Ajay Kumar Srivasava is also permitted to file his claim petition within the same period. On filing of such representation / claim petition, the 2nd respondent shall call for records from WRIA No. 59613 of 2017 2 the 4th respondent and dispose of the both representation / claim petition based on records after hearing all the necessary parties within a period of two months thereafter. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. September 15, 2025 rkg WRIA No. 59613 of 2017 3 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad