HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 2078 of 2020 Court No. - 38 HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent - Director of Education (Higher), U.P. Allahabad, with further directions to accord all consequential benefits and declare that the petitioner was appointed in substantial vacant post as Assistant Professor, in the department of Defence Studies in R.S.S. (P.G. College), Pilkhuwa, Hapur. 3. As directed by this Court in Writ-A No.13781 of 2019 on 13.09.2019, the respondents rejected the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services under Section 31-E (1) of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1980"). 4. The main ground for rejection of the petitioner's claim was that initially, the petitioner's services were continued by virtue of the order passed in Writ- A No.33141 of 2006 and subsequently, the said writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 07.12.2016. Hence, the petitioner's services have been dispensed with. As per the Government Order dated 24.10.2018, persons those who are working as per law till 10.09.2018, are alone eligible for absorption. As earlier Writ-A No.33141 of 2006 has been dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 07.12.2016, the petitioner is not eligible to be considered for absorption under the provisions of Section 31-E (1) of the Act, 1980. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner has made his submissions Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Man Mohan Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Madan Gopal Agrawal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) that in view of the orders passed by this Court in Writ-A No.33141 of 2006, the petitioner has continued till 19.12.2019. After rejection order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent has dispensed with services of the petitioner. Hence, as per provisions of Section 31-E (1) of the Act, 1980, the petitioner is eligible for absorption. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in fact, identical issue was considered by the division Bench of this Court in bunch of the matters leading case - Service Bench No.1175 of 2009 on 22.12.2010. 6. When factual issue was considered with regard to continuation of the petitioner's services till 19.12.2019, this Court has passed the following orders on 01.08.2025: " 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. As controversy involved in this writ petition is that the petitioner's services have been dispensed with consequent to the dismissal of Writ-A No.33141 of 2006, hence the petitioner is not eligible to be considered for absorption under Section 31-E of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 as amended by U.P. Act No.38 of 2018. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that after dismissal of the said writ petition, it was restored and the petitioner was continued in service till rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent on 19.12.2019. 4. Though notices were served on the 3rd respondent to clarify the said aspect but he has not turned up. In the said circumstances, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to get report from the 3rd respondent with regard to working of the petitioner in the institution from 2016 to 2019. 5. List this case after two weeks." 7. Consequent to the above said directions, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents has placed instructions dated 11.09.2025 before this Court. According to the said instructions, Joint Director of Education (Higher Education), U.P. Prayagraj has got report from the 3rd respondent. According to the report submitted by the 3rd respondent dated 14.08.2025, it clearly establishes that the petitioner has continued till 19.12.2019. Once the 3rd respondent has clarified that the petitioner has continued till passing of the impugned order dated 19.12.2019, the 2nd respondent ought not to have rejected the case of the petitioner for absorption. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent - Director of Education (Higher), U.P. Allahabad is set aside as the same is contrary to records, remanding the matter to the 2nd WRIA No. 2078 of 2020 2 respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders under the provisions of Section 31-E (1) of the Act, 1980 and also as per observations made by the division Bench of this Court in bunch of the matters leading case - Service Bench No.1175 of 2009 on 22.12.2010, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. September 17, 2025 rkg WRIA No. 2078 of 2020 3 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad