TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hoc teacher on July 1, 1986 against a short term vacancy caused by promotion of the incumbent on an hoc basis to the next higher post. His appointment came to be terminated on May 30, 1988 w.e.f. June 30, 1988. The respondent challenged the order of termination in a writ petition. Pending writ petition, an interim order of stay though vacated by the learned single Judge, the same was granted by the Division Bench. 4. The learned Single Judge on merits dismissed the writ petition. On appeal, the Division Bench in the impugned order has held that since, pending writ petition, the services of the first respondent came to be regularised, he would be entitled to continue in service. However, on consideration of the entire matter, we make it c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent, contended that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Committee for regularising the services, matter was placed before a Committee constituted for regularisation and his name came to be regularised. The High Court, therefore, was right in stating that subject to an order being passed by the competent authority in that behalf, the respondent would continue as a regularised candidates. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with in the rejoinder filed by the appellant stating that it is being adjudicated in another pending case; therefore, the appeal no longer survives. 6. In view of the respective contentions, the question that arises for consideration is : whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the Third r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;ble High Court. Therefore, appointment is disputed. 7. In fact, the regularisation order passed by the District Inspector of Schools also says that it was subject to the result in the writ petition. The appeal being the continuation of the writ petition, the question arises : whether the respondent is entitled to claim the benefit of Section 33-B(1)(a)(i) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982. We have seen that his services came to be terminated on May 30, 1988 and the amendment Act has no application. Hence, the Division Bench was not right in giving direction that his regularisation will be subject to the further order since the regularisation order itself means that it was subject to the result of the writ pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
