STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. ANURAG GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Atul Kumar Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Shri Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

(2.) The instant Intra Court Appeal has been filed by the State authorities against the judgment and order dtd. 25/11/2020 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing Writ Petition No. 31660 (S/S) of 2019, which was filed by the respondent no. 1 challenging on order dtd. 6/9/2019 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Lakhimpur Kheri (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "the D.I.O.S."), rejecting the petitioner's representation to include his name in the list of teachers of the college for taking it on State Government's Grant-in-aid and consequently pay him salary from the State exchequer.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent no. 1 had filed the Writ Petition pleading that he holds the qualifications of Bachelor of Arts alongwith Intermediate Grade Drawing Examination of Bombay and being fully eligible for being appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Art), he had applied against a post of Assistant Teacher (Art) advertised by Sri. Hanumant Intermediate College, Lakhimpur-Kheri (the respondent no. 2 in the Appeal, which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the college'). Vide order dtd. 10/10/1999, the Manager of the college had appointed the petitioner on the aforesaid post on a temporary basis and the petitioner joined his duties on 11/10/1999. The petitioner has alleged that the Manager of the college became annoyed with him and did not allow him to perform his duties for the period from 22/11/2000 till 14/7/2001 and being perturbed, humiliated and victimized, coupled with mental tension and depression, the petitioner fell seriously ill and on 22/11/2000 itself, he gave an application for grant of leave to the Principal of the college. Although the petitioner has alleged that he was required to furnish a compromise that he will not claim salary for the aforesaid period, the document alleged to be a compromise is a letter dtd. 14/7/2001 written by the petitioner to the D.I.O.S. stating that he had not performed teaching duties in the college between the period 22/11/2000 to 14/7/2001 and, therefore, he will not claim the salary and allowances etc. for the aforesaid period. A copy of this letter was endorsed to the Manager of the college also. Thereafter the petitioner was allowed to perform his duties with effect from 21/7/2001.