MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner had approached this Court requesting therein that financial approval has been accorded to the appointment of petitioner on 25.12.1998 as Assistant Teacher as such salary be ensured and directives be issued for considering the claim of the petitioner for being regularised.

(2.) Brief background of the case is that in the District of Agra there is recognized institution known as Shri Bhola Nath Sarraf Inter College, Agra. Said institution is run and managed as per the provision as contained in U.P. Act No. II of 1921 and U.P. Act No. V of 1982 and as the institution in question is in grant-in-aid list of the State Government, as such the provisions as contained in U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 are fully applicable to the said institution. In the institution concerned petitioner claims that one substantive post of Assistant Teacher (L.T.) grade fell vacant and said post was advertised in news paper 'Amar Ujala' and 'Sainik' on 17.07.1996 and then petitioner was selected. Petitioner has contended that he was issued appointment letter on 07.08.1996 and thereafter he joined and entire papers were sent to District Inspector of Schools for according financial approval and same was accorded approval on 25.12.1998 w.e.f. 07.08.1996. Petitioner has contended that in spite of the financial approval no salary was being ensured to petitioner, therefore, petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39387 of 2006 (Mahesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others) before this Court. Said writ petition on 04.08.2006 has been was got dismissed as not pressed. At the point of time when aforesaid writ petition has been got dismissed as not pressed, therein similar prayer has been made in the aforesaid writ petition but no liberty was given by this Court to file fresh writ petition. Petitioner has again approached this Court for same set of relief. Smt. Anita Tripathi, Advocate, contended with vehemence that in the present case salary has not been ensured, whereas financial approval has been accorded, as such writ petition deserves to the allowed.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that once earlier writ petition which has been filed by the petitioner for same set of relief has already been dismissed with no liberty to file fresh writ petition, as such present writ petition is not maintainable on the same set of relief.