SHASHI PRABHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter was heard by this court on 08.09.2014 and the judgment was dictated in the open court, however, before signing the same, I found that certain issues required clarification, accordingly, the matter was posted for rehearing. Thereafter, the matter was heard and the judgment was reserved on 10.11.2014.

(2.) Heard Sri P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State.

(3.) The petitioner was appointed as assistant teacher in government primary school vide appointment letter dated 30.11.1999. After completing the requisite BTC course, she joined on her post on 22.12.1999. She worked uptil February, 2000. From March, 2000, she was absent from her duties. The petitioner claims that she appeared in the institution in question on 18.08.2001 and offered to join after regaining health, but, was not allowed. It is also admitted to the petitioner that, thereafter, she again fell ill and it was only on 05.04.2004 that she submitted a representation by registered post along with a medical certificate for being allowed to join on her post, but, was not allowed. On 02.07.2004, a show cause notice was issued to her, inter alia, stating that her absence was indicative of her disinclination to work in the service and that there was no provision in the Rules under which leave of such a long duration could be granted after having put in such a short duration of service. The petitioner submitted a reply on 24.07.2004. As nothing happened, thereafter, she filed a writ petition bearing Writ-A No.53900 of 2006, which was disposed of by this court on 26.03.2010 with a direction to the District Basic Education Officer to look into the matter and take a decision. The said judgment was not complied, which led to the initiation of contempt proceedings by the petitioner against the respondents. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 25.08.2010 was passed terminating her services w.e.f. March, 2001, on account of her long absence as there was no Rule under which leave of such a long duration could be sanctioned as the petitioner had put in only two months of service. Her representation dated 04.04.2010 was accordingly rejected.