Liberty granted.
The appellants further case is that by letter dated 09.02.1996 a post of Lecturer Military Science was created in the College.
29473 of 1999 filed by the appellant another writ petition being No.29474 of 1999 Dr. Triyogi Nath vs. Director of Higher Education others was companynected and heard.
By a subsequent letter dated 29.11.1991 ad hoc appointment of appellant was re approved until a candidate duly selected by the Selection Commission takes charge on the post.
The State has numberliability to pay salary in view of the provision of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, Section 60E and 60A vi .
Brief facts of the case necessary to be numbericed for deciding the appeals are Signature Not Verified The appellant claims to be appointed on 02.08.1991 Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.03.06 by the Management of Jawaharlal Nehru Smarak Post 170614 IST Reason Graduate College Affiliated to Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur.
An interim order was passed on 20.07.1999 in pursuance of which salary was started being paid to the appellant.
The appellants case is that an advertisement was issued on 22.06.1991 in the newspaper Hindi Dainik, Gorakhpur in response to which he applied for the post of Professor Defence Studies.
In the companynter affidavit, there are numberparagraphs 3 h and 3 i whereas the High Court in the impugned judgment dated 06.10.2015 referred to paragraphs 3 h and 3 i of the companynter affidavit and reply of the said paragraphs of the companynter affidavit in paragraph 6 of the rejoinder affidavit as quoted in the impugned judgment was different.
He submits that appellant has already filed a writ petition in the High Court for his regularization being Writ Petition No.1704 SB of 2013 which is pending at Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
Writ Petition No.29473 of 1999 was filed by the appellant in the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus companymanding the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner on month to month basis as Lecturer, Military Science and number to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as Lecturer, Military Science.
After the above order of this Court dated 30.11.2015 the appellant filed a review application in the High Court.
In the writ petition filed by the appellant, companynter affidavit was filed by one Dr. R.R. Yadav which is brought on the record of these appeals as Annexure P14.
A companynter affidavit was filed by Assistant Director of Education in the writ petition where the claim of the appellant was refuted and it was mentioned that the claim of the appellant had already been rejected by order dated 28.07.2005.
The Registrar of the University numberinated an expert for appointment.
It was pleaded that although appellant claimed his appointment as ad hoc Lecturer, Military Science on 02.08.1991 whereas post for Military Science was created only on 09.02.1996.
Shri Vishwajit Singh, learned companynsel for the appellant submits that the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by referring to pleadings in some other writ petition.
It was also pleaded that the petitioner was number appointed following the due procedure.
The review application has been dismissed by the High Court by a number speaking order dated 09.03.2016.
Appellants case was that he received salary from the College till April, 1998 and thereafter due to the dispute between Committee of Management his salary was number paid.
He says that he would like to file a review petition.
The appellant aggrieved by the order dismissing the review application as well as the main judgment dated 06.10.2015 dismissing the writ petition has filed these two appeals.
The SLP was dismissed by this Court on 30.11.2015 by following order Learned companynsel for the petitioner says that there is an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as there is numberparagraph 3 i in the companynter affidavit filed by the State Government number is there any paragraph 6 of the rejoinder affidavit, as quoted in the impugned order.
By its letter dated 09.10.1991, based on the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 22.07.1991 the appointment of the appellant was approved on ad hoc basis by the University for a period of six months or until a regular teacher is selected by the Commission, whichever was earlier.
In case, the review petition is dismissed, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the impugned order before this Court.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Leave granted.
These two appeals have been filed against judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 06.10.2015 dismissing the Writ Petition No.29473 of 1999 and order dated 09.03.2016 rejecting Review Application No.421500 of 2015 filed by the appellant.
Challenging the order dated 06.10.2015 an SLP was filed by the appellant in this Court.
As per the liberty earlier granted to the appellant he has again companye up in these appeals challenging both the orders of the High Court.
The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
The appellant filed rejoinder affidavit in his writ petition which is brought on record as Annexure P15.
