PHOOL KISHORI TEWARI Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher (Home Science) in C.T. Grade in the institution managed and run by Nagar Palika, Auraiya, district Etawah. By the order contained in the letter dated 5 -8 -1975 (Annexure -2 to the writ petition) she was promoted to L.T. Grade 300 -10 -350 E. B. 12 -470 -E. B. 16 -550. By a subsequent order contained in the letter dated 14 -2 -1977 (Annexure -3 to the writ petition) he was confirmed. By the impugned order dated 30 -7 -1981 passed by the Prabhari Adhikari, Nagar Palika Auraiya the petitioner was reverted to C.T. Grade w. e. f. 24 -2 -1981. This order purports to have been passed on the assumed ground that one Smt. Sarla Agrawal, whose services in the L.T. Grade were terminated won the case from the U.P. Public Services Tribunal which directed for reinstatement vide order dated 31 -1 -1981 and the impugned order proceeds further on the assumption that the petitioner was appointed in the vacancy which occurred on account of the termination of the services of Smt. Sarla Agrawal. It may be noticed that the impugned order dated 30 -7 -1981 states that prior approval of the R.I.G.S. was obtained vide order contained in the letter dated 30 -5 -1981, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure -6 to the writ, petition. I have heard Dr. R. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. The contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order of reversion is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as it was passed without prior approval of the R.I.G.S. which is sine qua -non for a valid order of reversion in view of Section 16G(3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the order dated 30 -5 -1991 (Annexure -6) is not an order of prior approval of termination as contemplated by Section 16 -G(3) of the Act. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the order dated 30 -5 -1981 indicates that this was passed with reference to the proposal of termination of services of Kumari Madhur Devi on the principle of 'last come first go'. The R.I.G.S. declined the approval sought for with the observation that the teacher who was appointed in place of Smt. Sarla Agrawal might be reverted. This order dated 30 -5 -1981 nowhere refers the name of the petitioner and does not indicate that she was appointed in place of Smt. Sarla Agrawal, Moreover,...., it was not passed in consonance with the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of being heard prior to the passing of the order. The contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not promoted to the post which fell vacant on account of termination of the services of Smt. Sarla Agrawal and in any case his submission is that the order regarding her promotion did not at all indicate that she was promoted in place of vacancy occurring on account of the termination of the services of Smt. Sarla Agrawal.

(2.) THE impugned order dated 30 -7 -1981 proceeds on factual assumption, the correctness of which is disputed before me. However, since the order dated 30 -7 -1961 cannot be said to be an order of prior approval of reversion of the petitioner from L.T. Grade with C.T. Grade -within the meaning of Section 16 -G(3) of the Act, the impugned order dated 30 -7 -1981 shall be deemed to be void and non -est.

(3.) THE validity of the order dated 30 -7 -1981 further depends on the question whether the petitioner was appointed in place of Smt. Sarla Agrawal. This question has not been decided by the respondents in consonance with the principles of natural justice and the impugned order proceeds on the basis of assumption that the petitioner was appointed in place of Smt. Sarla Agrawal. Accordingly the impugned order dated 30 -7 -1981 (Annexure -5 to the writ petition) deserves to be quashed.