KAMLA SHARMA SMT Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19-5-1993 by a learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed by Smt. Kushal Varshney. The appellant Smt. Kamla Sharma was not a party to the writ petition, but she has filed the appeal with the leave of the Court which was granted on 21-7-1993.

(2.) The writ Petitioner Smt. Kushal Varshney was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Chiranji Lal Girls Inter College, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the College) in 1961 and was promoted as Principal in July, 1972. Under Regulation 21 to Chapter III of Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the age of retirement of a Principal is 60 years. According to the case of the writ petitioner, a Government Order was issued in 1978 giving option to the teachers to take retirement at the age of 58 years Thereafter, another Government Order was issued on 6-10-1990 by which teachers were given right to exercise their option within 90 days. The writ petitioner, accordingly, filled in the prescribed form for exercising option on 24-10-1990 and forwarded the same to the office of the District Inspector of Schools. However no orders on the said option were passed and the State Government issued another G.O. on 4-11-1991 giving right to the teachers to exercise their option. According to the Petitioner, she exercised her right again on 4-1-1992 modifying the earlier option dated 24-10-1990 and expressed her desire to continue upto the age of 60 years. The Deputy Director Education, however, vide his order dated 15-9-1992 accepted the first option exercised by her by which she could continue upto 58 years. According to the petitioner, as she had exercised second option on 4-1-1992, it was not open to the Deputy Director Education to have accepted her first option on 15-9-1992. The Petitioner accordingly filed the writ petition praying for following reliefs :

(3.) The first contention of Sri R.N. Singh learned Counsel for the appellant is that in-fact Smt. Kushal Varshney did not exercise any option on 4-1-1992 and on 15-9-1992 when the Deputy Director Education had accepted her first option dated 24-10-1990, there was no other option on her behalf and as such no illegality had been committed by the Deputy Director Education while accepting the first option of the petitioner. The learned Counsel has submitted that there is forgery in the option form alleged to have been filled in by the writ petitioner and the figure '92' has been interpolated subsequently by changing the figure '0' to '2' meaning thereby that the date was in-fact '4-1-90' but had been changed subsequently to '4-1-92'. We have carefully examined the aforesaid option form filled in by the writ petitioner and we are unable to find that any interpolation in the date has been done subsequently. That apart, the option form also bears the signature and seal of D.I.O.S. and below it the date 20-7-1992 has been written. It, therefore, shows that the second option exercised by the writ petitioner was countersigned by the D.I.O.S. on 20-7-1992 and its existence on record cannot be doubted. The D.I.O.S. had also written a letter to Deputy Director Education on 29-6-1993 (Annexure CA 7 to the counter-affidavit) wherein he has mentioned that the writ petitioner had sent here second option dated 4-1-1992 to his office which had been countersigned by the D.I.O.S. on 20-7-1992. The second aspect of the case is that even the first G.O. had been issued by the State Government on 24-10-1990 and as such there was no occasion for the writ petitioner to have exercised any option on 4-1-1990. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel that the figure '90' had been subsequently changed to '92' cannot be accepted.