TAJ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed assailing the order of the District Minority Welfare Officer which has been passed in compliance with the directions dated 7.9.2012 given in Writ Petition No. 45643 of 2012. While disposing of the writ petition, this Court took notice that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 31028 of 2010 and since the matter had remained unattended the direction was issued on 7.9.2012. Consequently the Basic Education Officer has passed the order on 30.11.2012 rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not functioned in the Institution and even otherwise is not entitled for the payment as claimed by him. The order even though on merit is unassailable yet the conduct of the petitioner is such that it appears to be noted for refusing any relief. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 31028 of 2010 which had been disposed of with a direction to the Basic Education Officer to decide his claim. It appears that the petitioner without disclosing the facts of filing of the said writ petition filed Writ Petition No. 59539 of 2011 which was dismissed on 2.12.2011 holding that the petitioner does not have any valid claim and even otherwise it cannot be enforced through a writ of mandamus keeping in view the status of employment of the petitioner. In short the writ petition was not maintainable for the relief claimed in respect of his payment of salary and status as a teacher in a Madarsa. The said order became final as it does not appear to have been questioned further.

(2.) The third Writ Petition No. 45643 of 2012 was filed for deciding a representation said to have been filed before the District Minority Welfare Officer. Consequently the District Minority Welfare Officer has now passed the impugned order which has been assailed through this writ petition.

(3.) It is surprising that once the writ petition filed by the petitioner was held to be not maintainable, he obtained an order from this Court on 7.9.2012 to decide his representation which appears to have been done without disclosing the facts of the Judgment dated 2.12.2011. Had this fact brought to the notice of the Court, the direction to dispose of the representation on 7.9.2012 may not have been issued. Accordingly, this is the fourth writ petition filed by the petitioner but fortunately he has disclosed all the facts aforesaid.