LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-198

PUSHPALATA MAURYA Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On January 19, 2006
PUSHPALATA MAURYA, TEJ BHAN MAURYA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by an Assistant Teacher of a Primary School governed by the provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 read with Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Teachers Service Rules 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" and "Rules" respectively). The challenge is to the order dated 6.12.2005 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition), whereby, the Assistant Basic Education Officer, Baharia, Allahabad and the Sub Deputy Inspector of Schools, Baharia, Allahabad, have issued directions to the Headmaster of all the institutions within their territorial jurisdiction including the Headmaster of Primary School, Beerganj, for relieving all such Teachers immediately from the institution to enable them to join at their original place of posting in view of the orders passed by the Basic Education Officer, Allahabad, dated 5.12.2005.

(2.) The main thrust of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the orders are without jurisdiction; that the orders have been passed without obtaining any approval of the Board; and that no final orders have been passed in view of the judgment of this Court on 6.2.2004 in writ petition No. 4561 of 2004 and other connected writ petitions, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to another judgment dated 8.11.2005 delivered by me in Writ Petition No. 48980 of 2005 and it is alleged that none of the judgments are being complied with and the petitioner is sought to be repatriated without any valid orders and that the payment of salary of the petitioner has been unjustifiably withheld which deserves to be released.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned order is in violation of Rule 21 of 1981 Rules and also in violation of the guidelines promulgated by the respondents themselves. He has further questioned the validity of the policies declared by the respondent - Board in the year 2001-02 and has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.5.2005 passed by the Basic Education Officer stopping the payment of salary of the petitioner.