DEEP NARAIN TRIPATHI Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition the petitioner made the following prayers :

(2.) THE institution in question, namely. Sti Bajrang Maha Vidhyalaya Dadar Ashram, Sikandarpur district Ballia is a duly recognised Degree College and is affiliated to Purwanchal University, Jaunpur, earlier it was affilated to Gorakhpur University, Gorkhpur.. THE institution in question is on the maintenance-grant in and list of the State Government. Ail Its teachers and employees are being paid their salaries through the State Funds. THEre is an approved scheme of Administration in the Institution in question for managing the affairs of the institution. THE petitioner passed his Intermediate examination in the year 1971 obtaining 49.6% marks. Sabsequently. the petitioner passed his B. A. Examination from Gorakhpur University in the year lv73 obtaining 48 4% marks. THE petitioner also passed his M. A. Examination in Sanskrit in the year 1975 obtaining 59.3% marks. He was also awarded Ph. D. in the year 1981 by the Gurakhpur University.

(3.) IN pursuance of the aforesaid Ordinance, the name of the petitioner was forwarded by the INstitution in prescribed proforma before the Regularisation Committee but the respondent no. 1 by his order dated 26-6-1992 (Annexure 14 to the petition;, has illegally rejected the candidature of the petitioner. IN pursuance of the said order of the respondent no. 1, the services of the petitioner would be deemed to have been terminated in 30th June, 92. The grounds taken in the said order are false, incorrect and preverse. Moreover no notice or opportunity whatsover has been given to the petitioner before the impugned order dated 26-6-92 has been passed against the petitioner. The order is non speaking one and no reasons have been assigned for not accepting the candidature of the petitioner. The petitioner is entiled to relaxation in his qualification due to P. Hd. Degree and the said relaxation has been rightly given to him by the said Selection Committee and the respondent nos. 1 and 2. had no occasion to interfere with the relaxation of the qualifications of the petitioner. The object of the Ordinance was to regularise the services of the teachers like the petitioner, who had been appointed on ad hoc basis. By the impugned order the said object has been defeated, in these circumstances the petition was filed for the reliefs aforesaid.