SURENDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claimed to be appointed as Peon at A.R.D. Intermediate College, Babhani, district Deoria a institution recognised under U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 were not applicable. The appointment on the post of Peon was made by the Principal in the year 1966. The services were discontinued by the Principal with effect from 1st January, 1975 The petitioner filed an appeal/representation to the Manager and thereafter representation to the District Inspector of Schools on 20th May, 1976. The petitioner also made a representation to the Deputy Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur, dated 17th August, 1981, on the representation made it to the District Inspector of Schools some inquiry was made from the Principal. However, by letter dated 7/9th November 1987 the petitioner was informed by the District Inspector of School, Deoria that the decision on the representation of the petitioner was already taken by him on 11th June, 1975. According to the petitioner he was never served with the order dated 11th June, 1975 and it was for the first time in November 1987 he came to know that his representation had been rejected by order dated 11th June, 1975. The petitioner has stated that his services dis -continued with effect from 1st January, 1975 by the Principal. Initially, the regulations framed under Chapter -III of the Intermediate Education Act, were not applicable in respect of Class -IV employees By notification dated 19th March, 1973 some regulations to the condition of service under Section 16G of the Act were made applicable. The petitioner, thus can not claim any protection under regulation 31 of Chapter -3 framed under Section 16G of the Act as his service stood terminated w.e.f. 1 -1 -1975.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner on the basis of Annexure -7 to the petition, submitted that the order of termination was passed by way of punishment, which was based on misconduct without affording reasonable opportunity. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The order dated 11th June, 1975 has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools on the representation of the petitioner, in which he has indicated his own reasons for the impugned action. Moreover merely because it has been mentioned in the order disposing of the representation that there were certain complaints and the Principal was not satisfied with his work, would not establish that the order was based on aforesaid misconduct. The aforesaid order is not a termination order. The reasons have been indicated by the District Inspector of Schools on the basis of inquiry made from the Principal and, as such, his order can not be treated as an order of punishment based on misconduct. In my opinion the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is accordingly dismissed.