1. Heard Sri Anand Tewari, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Santosh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed to challenge the order dated 18.03.2019 after about more than seven years. Petitioner has tried to explain the delay from paragraphs no. 40 to 45 of writ petition, however, the Court does not find it sufficient as it is absolutely silent about any explanation for the period of two years, i.e., from 2022 to 2024 and subsequently from June 2024 to December, 2025 when this writ petition was filed and for reference said paragraphs are reproduced hereinafter:

                  “40) That it is further submitted that the approval of the petitioner dated 03.09 1982 and 19.02.1991 has never been under question before any authority and as such he was paid regular salary from 1996 upto 2007 from the State Funds and further in contempt proceedings, specific orders were passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court on 02.02.2011 to pay regular salary to the petitioner but in complete defiance of the same and to some extent even acting contemptuously, the respondent no. 2 has passed the order impugned and as such the same is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.

                  41) That it is submitted that there is delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Hon'ble Court and the same is completely bona-fide and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Tiwari, Himanshu Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shafiullah Khan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) is liable to be condoned by this Hon'ble Court.

                  42) That after the order impugned was received by the petitioner in the month of April 2019, the impact of Covid-19 started increasing rapidly and the petitioner was made to suffer grave losses in the said Covid-19. As such, he could not approach this Hon’ble Court in time.

                  43) That when in the year 2022, the impact of Covid-19 decreased and the petitioner stabilized himself, he approached one counsel at the level of the District Court and handed him over the file as due to his ill health, he was not able to come to Prayagraj/Allahabad directly to file his case.

                  44) That the said advocate due to reasons unknown, could not file the same and the petitioner was made to wait till the mid of 2024 wherein ultimately the petitioner visited Prayagraj/Allahabad only in the month of June, 2024.

                  45) That the petitioner visited the office of his earlier counsel in the month of June, 2024 wherein he came to know that his earlier counsel has been elevated to the bench and he was advised to engage some other counsel.”

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the earlier round of litigation, a writ petition filed by petitioner, being Writ-A No. 4727 of 2001, was disposed of vide order dated 03.05.2018 and the said order is reproduced hereinafter:

                  “1. Heard Sri Anand Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Prakash Padia, Advocate, for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

                  2. It is stated that petitioner is a Teacher in Public Higher Secondary School and without obtaining prior approval of District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as “DIOS”), termination order has been passed by Management, which is patently illegal and contrary to Section 21 of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “1982 Act”).

                  3. This matter is pending since 2001 but Management has chosen not to file any counter affidavit. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf DIOS denying appointment of petitioner in the College in question on 24.01.1978 and it is said that there is no approval of appointment of petitioner in the College and the appointment itself is forged and fictitious and no relief can be granted.

                  4. Since the dispute with regard to validity of appointment of petitioner itself has been raised by DIOS, in my view, let this matter be examined by the Director of Education. I, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with direction to Director of Education to examine the issue of validity of appointment of petitioner and if it finds that petitioner was validly appointed, he will also examine that whether he was rightly terminated or not and he shall also pass a reasoned order within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, after giving due opportunity to all concerned parties.

                  5. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.”

4. Learned counsel further submits that respondents have not considered the specific direction passed in aforesaid order and they have not examined, whether the order of termination was rightly passed or not.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that every aspect of the case was taken note of and petitioner’s initial appointment was found doubtful, as his name was not even referred when a list was submitted in the year 1980, i.e., after alleged appointment of petitioner. He further submits that there is not provision that any Teacher can work in one Institution while claiming appointment in another Institution.

6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material available on record.

7. The Court does not find the above referred reasons to be sufficient to explain the delay, still the Court perused material on record and considered the arguments on merit also only in the interest of justice.

8. In impugned order, a detail consideration was made with regard to nature of appointment of petitioner and by a reasoned order initial appointment of petitioner was found to be forged and irregular. For reference relevant part of impugned order is reproduced hereinafter:

                 

                 

                 

 9. As referred above, the petitioner has claimed that he was appointed on 24.01.1978, however, when a list was submitted by concerned Institution subsequently in the year 1980, his name was not mentioned, therefore, a finding was returned that petitioner was not working in the year 1988-89. It is also on record that from 1983 to 1988 petitioner was working in a Sadhan Sahkari Samiti and has received salary also. This fact is also not denied by petitioner, as mentioned in the impugned order. Since petitioner has not worked even if he was appointed on the post of Teacher, therefor, his appointment came under clouds of doubt.

10. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere with impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.