JAGROOP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitiner has challenged the order dated 4.10.2014 passed by the officiating principal of Sangram Singh Inter College, Saidpur Gangu, district Sambhal. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner who is a class IV employee in the aforesaid institution as been terminated from service.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that initially the petitioner applied for promotion on clas III post under 50% quota in the reserved quota for promotion from class IV to class III? which was not being considered and, therefore, the writ petition was filed and a direction was issued to consider the claim of the petitioner. Instead of considering the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner was placed under suspension which was again challenged before this Court in another writ petition and a direction was issued to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion which order was also not being complied with and , therefore, in another writ petition a direction was issued to appoint authorized controller and when the authorized controller takes charge he was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion. Aforesaid order was passed in writ petition No.48945 of 2014 by the order dated 11.9.2014. Against the aforesaid order it appears that Committee of Management preferred special appeal No.942 of 2014.

(3.) IT is submitted that in the said special appeal, the status quo order has been passed. Now by the impugned order, the officiating Principal of the Institution has dismissed the petitioner from service. It is submitted that the said dismissal order is malafide as the institution in question along with the Committee of Management has been harassing the petitioner since beginning and , therefore, the petitioner has been agitating? for redressal of his grievance before this Court by filing successive writ petitions and in each writ petition he was granted some relied but due to hostile attitude of the authorities of the Institution, the petitioner has to rush to this Court again and now by the impugned order he has been dismissed from service. The petitioner then filed appeal before the Committee of Management, respondent No.4 but no orders were passed , therefore, the petitioner has now filed a representation before the DIOS where the matter is pending.