ARUNA SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quas hing the impugned order of the District In spector of Schools, Alld. dt. 16-5-1995 Annexure-9 to the writ petition and for a man damus directing the respondent No. 1 to pay them salary regularly along with arrears.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

(3.) AGGRIEVED the petitioner made a representation to the District Inspector of Schools and the Committee of Management alleging that the petitioner No. 1 had put in 20 years service in the institution and the petitioner No. 2 had put in 15 years service and hence the alleged action of the respon dents was arbitrary. The petitioner filed writ petition No. 12531 of 1990 in this Court and this court vide its order dt. 9-2-1995 directed the District Inspector of Schools to decide their representation. The petitioner served this order on the District Inspector of Schools and alleged that Sumer Chand Ag arwal and Sarju Prasad Misra who were wor king in the institution and were getting salary as Assistant Teachers in the primary section had retired in February and Sep. , 1994 respectively. However, the District In spector of Schools rejected the represent ation vide order dt. 16-5-1995, Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Hence this petition.