SUNIL KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rishabh Tripathi and Sri K.M.Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Modern Subject) on 1.7.2005 by the Manager, Committee of Management by following the due process in Ram Deshik Sanskrit Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalya Rampur, Ankaripur, District Faizabad (now Ayodhya) (in short "Institution"). The petitioner joined his duties on the post of Assistant Teacher (Modern Subject) on 4.7.2005. In the year 2008, with regard to taking the Institution in grant-in-aid, the name of the Teacher as well as Principal was submitted before the authorities concerned in which the name of the opposite party No. 6 and 7 does not find place. On 12.08.2010, the State Government issued a Government Order by which the institution of the petitioner was taken into grant-in-aid list. When the manager came to know regarding the grant-in-aid of the Institution, he immediately changed the list of teachers by mixing the name of his son and daughter-in-law viz Alok Kumar Tiwari (Opposite Party No. 7) and Mithilesh Kumar (opposite party no. 6). Thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad, sent a letter to the opposite party no. 2 on 29.03.2011 with the observation that two different lists have been submitted in respect of teaching staff and requested the respondent no. 2 to do the needful in the matter. From the records of District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad it appears that appointment of opposite party nos. 6 and 7 were of 01.07.2009 and 02.07.2009 respectively and petitioner has been working since 04.07.2005. The petitioner is still working on the post of Assistant Teacher (Modern Subject) since the date of joining. The petitioner is fully eligible and qualified for the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Modern Subject) and being so entitled to salary from State.

(3.) Opposing the writ petition, the respondent nos. 4, 6 and 7 have filed counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 6 and 7 is also on record.