ARJUN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION IVTH REGION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a C.T. Grade Teacher on 25.7 1972 and with effect from 1.8.1974, the petitioner was appointed as a teacher in L.T. Grade. Subsequently, by an order of the District Inspector of Schools, dated 22.9.1976,. the petitioner was reverted to the. post of C.T. Grade Teacher. On 18.5.1984, the petitioner was charge-sheeted. The petitioner gave his reply on 13.7.1984 which was not found satisfactory and accordingly the Disciplinary Authority initialed an inquiry proceeding and appointed an Inquiry Officer. The petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer and full opprtunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself. The Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted his inquiry report on the basis of which the Committee of Management passed a resolution dated 16.12.1984 proposing to terminate the services of the petitioner. In pursuance to the resolution dated 16.12.1984, the petitioner was suspended on 17.12.1984, pending grant of approval from the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools by order dated 1/2.5.1990, approved the termination of the petitioner's services. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal, which was dismissed by an order dated 18.5.1991, passed by the Deputy Director of Education. After the approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner made a representation dated 14.9.1990 against his reversion order dated 21.9.1976. This representation was rejected by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 7.3.1992. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 1/2.5.1990, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, approving the termination of the services of the petitioner as well as the order dated 18.6.1991, passed by the Deputy Director of Education rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 7.3.1992, whereby the representation of the petitioner for quashing the reversion order has also been rejected by the District Inspector of Schools..

(2.) Heard Sri I.N. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 22.9,1976 reverting the petitioner from the post of L.T. Grade to the post of C.T. Grade was wholly illegal inasmuch as the petitioner was fully qualified for being appointed to, the post of L.T. Grade. The petitioner, therefore, submitted that the District Inspector of Schools ought to have allowed his representation dated 14.9.1990 and that the District Inspector of Schools had committing an error in rejecting the same by its order dated 7.3.1992.