(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Shiv Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vinay Misra, learned Counsel for the sole respondent.
(2.) The District Basic Education Officer, Pratapgarh has preferred this intra-Court Appeal assailing the correctness of the order dated 6.9.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Case No. 20864 of 2017, Committee of Management Mata Badal Shri Krishna Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. State of U.P. and others. By the said order, learned Single Judge after referring to certain judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has allowed the writ petition after setting aside the order passed by the District Basic Eduction Officer and further issuing a direction that in case a fresh application is given by the writ petitioner, the same may be decided afresh after considering the judgments referred to in the said order.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgments referred to in the order of the learned Single Judge related to institutions, where the vacancy had arisen prior to the cut-off date, i.e., 31.7.2016 whereas in the present case, the vacancy has arisen in April, 2017 and therefore the said judgments will not have an application to the present case. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that vide communication of the Director, Basic Education dated 4.1.2018, the vacancy position for the year 2017 is now being collected from all the institutions and after completing the exercise, relevant Government Orders would be issued for filling up the vacancies and it is such Government Order that will cover the case of the writ petitioner. If the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is to be accepted, then giving all such details the direction issued by the Writ Court can be adequately considered and appropriate decision taken after incorporating all such relevant facts.