JUDGMENT
S.U. Khan, J.
1. The first writ petition has been filed by Sri Rakesh Chandra Pandey (R.C. Pandey) and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Misra (A.K. Misra) and the second writ petition has been filed by R.C. Pandey alone. In the second Writ Petition (of 1997) R.C. Pandey has challenged the order passed by D.I.O.S. dated 2.5.1997. It is not clear as to whether Sri A.K. Misra also filed writ petition against the said order dated 2.5.1997 passed by D.I.O.S. as it affected both of them, or not?
2. Petitioners claimed that they had validly been selected and appointed as L. T. grade teachers by Committee of Management of Sri Dandi Swami Keshava Ashram Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalay, Gunai Gaharpur, Tehsil Meja, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the institution) on 3.6.1989 under Section 18 of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Petitioners further claimed that their ad hoc appointment was approved by D.I.O.S. on 23/30.10.1989. The institution was brought on grant-in-aid list on 1.4.1996 and in the list of valid teachers, submitted by Principal after the institution was brought on grant-in-aid list, names of both the petitioners were mentioned while in the similar list submitted by the Manager of Committee of Management Sri Triveni Prasad, their names were omitted. Petitioners and two others filed writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 3903 of 1997, which was decided on 4.2.1997 and D.I.O.S. was directed to decide the matter. D.I.O.S. in pursuance of the said order decided that matter by order dated 2.5.1997, holding that the appointment of petitioners was illegal and that it had never been approved by D.I.O.S. The signatures of D.I.O.S. on the alleged approval order were forged. The D.I.O.S. further held that in any case appointment had not been made by validly appointed Manager of Committee of Management. According to the petitioners their appointment was made by Sawitri Pandey, who was validly appointed and recognized Manager of Committee of Management from 1986 till 1992.
3. R. C. Pandey concealing the fact that against order dated 2.5.1997 passed by D.I.O.S., he had already filed Writ Petition No. 28554 of 1997, filed another writ petition being Writ Petition No. 16879, of 2000. In the said writ petition he stated that against order of D.I.O.S. dated 2.5.1997 he had filed a representation before Joint Director of Education. A.K. Misra also filed a similar writ petition being Writ Petition No. 16880 of 2000. Both the writ petitions were disposed of on 21.4.2000 with the direction to Joint Director of Education to decide the representation of the petitioners which they had filed against order of D.I.O.S. dated 2.5.1997. Joint Director of Education in compliance of the order of this Court dated 21.4.2000 rejected the representation of the petitioners on 16.9.2000, which is Annexure-17 to the first Writ Petition (of 2001). The Joint Director of Education has held that the appointment of the petitioners was hit by Full Bench authority of this Court in Radha Raizada and Ors. v. Committee of Management and Anr., 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551.
4. Petitioners had claimed parity with one Sri Shiv Shankar Yadav, who appears to have been appointed by Sawitri Pandey the alleged Manager around the same period, when petitioners claimed to have been appointed. The Joint Director of Education has rightly held in this regard that Shiv Shankar was appointed on Class IV post for which appointing authority is Principal hence, dispute of management has got no concern with such appointments.
5. Assuming for the sake of argument that Sawitri Pandey was validly elected Manager in July 1989, when petitioners claimed to have been appointed, it would not benefit the petitioners in the least. The petitioner’s appointment even if made as alleged, was not valid in view of Radha Raizada Full Bench authority (supra). There is no allegation in the writ petition that procedure prescribed under First Removal of Difficulties Order passed under U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act was followed. The alleged approval by D.I.O.S. dated 23/30.10.1989 has rightly been found to be forged by D.I.O.S. as well as Joint Director of Education hence, petitioners are not entitled for any relief.
6. Accordingly both the writ petitions are dismissed.
