RAM BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate for the appellant, Sri Ran Vijal Slngh, learned standing counsel for the State respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Arun Tandon, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 3.

(2.) This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.9.1999, passed by the learned single judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38478 of 1999, dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the writ petitioner, appellant herein, has already exercised the option on 20th December, 1990, to retire on attaining the age of 58 years and the said option was accepted by the competent authority.

(3.) The contention of the writ petitioner, appellant herein, is that he has exercised his first option on 20th December, 1990, to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. Thereafter the petitioner exercised another option on 20th December, 1991, in view of the Government order dated 17.2.1991, claiming that he was entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. The learned single Judge held that since the District Inspector of Schools has recorded clear and categorical finding that the first option exercised by the petitioner in the year 1990 has already been accepted and his second option was not approved by the department, the petitioner continued to hold the said post after 30th June. 1998, illegally. The learned single Judge further held that the findings recorded by the District Inspector of Schools are based on relevant evidence available on the record. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and taking into account that no rejoinder-affidavit had been filed to the short counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 3. Committee of Management, the writ petition was dismissed since there was no dental to the allegations made in the short counter-affidavit.