RAJPATI PANDEY Vs. DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents.

(2.) BY means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.1.2007 in so far as it directs that the petitioner will not claim salary for the services rendered by him between 10.11.1998 to 20.1.2007 and would also not be entitled for any consequential benefits for the same period.

(3.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the writ petition are that two posts of Asstt. Teachers were available in Gayatri Devi Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sangipur, Soraon, Distt. Allahabad and the same were advertised in the newspaper 'Aaj' on 7.8.1990. As per the advertisement the petitioner had applied and was placed at Sl.No.1 in the selection. The Committee of Management had accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee and forwarded the papers to the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad on 7.9.1998 for approval of said selection. In this regard certain queries had been made by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Allahabad on 23.9.1998 and the said queries had immediately been responded by the Committee of Management on 29.9.1998. Thereafter, the appointment letter dated 9.11.1998 was issued to the petitioner by the Management after the lapse of one month from the date of reply to the queries to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 29.9.1998, in pursuance to Rule 10 (b) (iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (in short the Rules). For ready reference, the Rule 10 (b) (iii) of the Rules is reproduced hereunder: -