UMA SHANKAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shatrugan Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel, through virtual mode.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 15/1/2020 issued on behalf of respondent no.1 by the Deputy Secretary, Samaj Kalyan, Anubhag-II, wherein it has been stated that in the light of the report submitted by the Director, Samaj Kalyan dtd. 24/12/2019, no further action is required to be taken in the case of granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner further challenges the letter dtd. 24/1/2020 issued from the office of the Director, Samaj Kalyan by which a direction has been issued to the District Social Welfare Officer, Ballia, to inform the petitioner working as Assistant Teacher in Anusuchit Jaati Primary Paathshala, Narhi Chandayar Balipur, District Ballia, of the decision taken by the State Government. The petitioner also challenges the letter dtd. 24/2/2019 sent from the office of the Director, Samaj Kalyan to the respondent no.1 wherein according to the petitioner wrong and perverse findings have been given which are against the documents on record which has led to passing of the order dtd. 15/1/2020 and 24/1/2020.

(3.) It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year 2002, three posts of Assistant Teacher were advertised by the Social Welfare Department of the State Government and the petitioner was selected and appointed by an order dtd. 5/9/2002 as Assistant Teacher (Trained) in Anusuchit Jaati Primary Paathshala, Narhi Chandayar Balipur, District Ballia. In pursuance of the appointment order issued by the Manager of Dr. Ambedkar Siksha Sansthan, Ballia, the petitioner joined the School in question on 6/9/2002 and from 2002 till date he has been working as Assistant Teacher in the said school.