ALI AHAMAD ANSARI Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the appellant, Sri M.N. Pathak appearing for respondent No. 4 and learned standing counsel.

(2.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25th January, 2006 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 14672 of 2003 filed by the appellant challenging the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 3rd March, 2003.

(3.) Brief facts necessary for disposing of this appeal are; respondent No. 4 was working as Class-IV employee in Sri Krishna Intermediate College Semara, Kathkuia, District Kushinagar. The services of respondent No. 4 were terminated by the Principal on 20th August, 1997. After the termination of services of respondent No. 4, the appellant claims to be appointed as Class-IV employee. The respondent No. 4 filed Writ Petition No. 5814 of 2002 stating that he is a Class-IV employee but he is not being permitted to function in the institution. This Court vide order dated 8th February, 2002 disposed of the writ petition directing the District Inspector of Schools to consider the representation of respondent No. 4. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 3rd March, 2003 directing that respondent No. 4 be reinstated and be paid salary from the date of reinstatement. The District Inspector of Schools in the said order held that termination of services of respondent No. 4 vide order dated 20th August, 1997 is not valid. Two grounds were given by District Inspector of Schools for coming to the said conclusion, firstly it was stated that before passing the termination order the principles of natural justice were not satisfied and secondly that termination of respondent No. 4 was made without obtaining prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools as required under Chapter-III Regulation-31 of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Against the order of the District Inspector of Schools the writ petition was filed by the appellant, who claims to be subsequent appointee, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 25th January, 2006.