SMT. RENU SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks quashing of an order dated 18.3.2017 terminating petitioner's services. Approval granted to it by the District Basic Education Officer on 3.3.2017 is also assailed. The order of termination refers to communication dated 4.2.2017, sent by the Administrator/Authorized Controller to the District Basic Education Officer, holding that petitioner's continuance as Assistant Teacher in institution is not legal and proper and thus seeking approval for termination. This communication is accompanied by an order of the Authorized Controller running into ten pages, which contains elaborate discussion on the charges levelled against the petitioner, defence setup by her and also the conclusions drawn. This communication alongwith its enclosures has been brought on record by way of a supplementary affidavit. The order records primarily following reasons for petitioner's termination i.e. (i) there existed 8 sanctioned posts of Assistant Teacher in 1997 when the institution was taken on aid, and all of which were already filled, and therefore, in the absence of vacant post, the petitioner could not have been appointed; (ii) petitioner lacked essential eligibility qualification inasmuch as she does not possess training qualification in terms of the rules and her appointment, therefore, is bad; (iii) it is also observed that the appointment was obtained by manipulation and without following the procedure contemplated in law.

(2.) The order is challenged primarily on the ground that having satisfactorily worked for 20 years, it would be inequitable to terminate petitioner's services inasmuch as she has become overage for any other job and her career would be ruined. It is stated that appointment of the petitioner was duly approved by the authorities and that in an enquiry conducted earlier by the Assistant Director her appointment was found to be valid. It is also stated that having worked for 20 years, the petitioner ought not to have been terminate for lack of training qualification as she has gained sufficient experience while working and the object of securing training has lost its significance. It is also contended that an approval was granted by the competent authority for opening a new Sec. in the institution and it is against consequential additional post that petitioner was appointed to which approval was also granted. Learned counsel further submits that the post was widely advertised in Hindi daily newspaper 'Dainik Nagar' and it is with reference to the similarly placed other persons that petitioner is entitled to continue.

(3.) The petition is opposed by the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Vindhyawashini Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, contending that petitioner's appointment is void and is not liable to be protected. It is also stated that petitioner's appointment is a result of manipulation and fraud and does not merit any sympathy. It is also stated that petitioner's continuation was pursuant to interim orders passed by this Court and no equity can be claimed by the petitioner.