KAILASH NATH HARBOLA Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mahra, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate for respondent No. 7 and Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Advocate for respondent No. 6.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in a grant -in -aid private school known as "Adarsh Inter College", Suraikhet (Bitholi), District Almora on 03.11.1979. In the year 1985 he remained absent from his duties for a considerable period. The reasons for remaining absent from duty are still unknown. A resolution was passed therefore on 23.12.1986 by the Committee of Management of the school that the petitioner be removed from service w.e.f. 10.11.1985. This resolution was sent to the Service Commission for approval, as required at the relevant time in the State of Uttar Pradesh, which was subsequently approved by the Commission after a period of 10 years i.e." on 28.6.1996. Thereafter the petitioner's services were terminated by the Committee of Management on 31.07.1996 w.e.f. 10.11.1985. The Committee of Management earlier vide its resolution dated 23.12.1986 had came to the conclusion that there are serious charges against the petitioner and the petitioner is not prepared to face an enquiry and therefore his services were terminated. Against the order dated 23.12.1986 petitioner never approached any court for redressal of his grievance. He, however, filed a writ petition against the "approval" of his termination in the year 1996, i.e. ten years later before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and after the creation of new State of Uttarakhand, the writ petition stood transferred before this Court under Section 35 of the U.P. Reorganization Act and re -numbered as WPSS No. 4089/2001. The learned Single Judge of this Court heard this writ petition No. 4089/2001 (S/S) finally in the year 2006 and came to the conclusion that under Section 21 of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982 (which was applicable to the petitioner) it was mandatory for the Committee of Management to take an approval from the Commission/Board before terminating the services of the petitioner. Section 21 reads as under: -

(3.) This decision of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 80/2006, which was disposed of on 16.11.2006 and the Division Bench remanded the matter for fresh hearing. The order of the division bench reads as under: -