RAJENDRA PRASAD TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Sri R. K. Ojha, assisted by Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 and Sri A. K. Yadav, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 6 have been heard. The respondent No. 5 was issued notices by registered post and as per the office report dated 15. 3. 2005, neither the acknowledgement has been received undelivered nor the notice has been re ceived back, therefore, service upon respondent No. 5 is deemed sufficient. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 5.

(2.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 to which the petitioner has also filed the rejoinder affidavit. The respondent No. 6 has not filed any counter affidavit, but has opposed the writ petition on the basis of the aver ments contained in the writ petition as well as adopting the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. As requested by the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally and is being decided at this stage under the Rules of the Court.

(3.) ON behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4, counter affidavit has been filed stating that the management after conviction of the petitioner, dismissed him from ser vice with effect from 16. 8. 1983 and in the resultant vacancy appointed Sri Sunder Prasad, respondent No. 6. It is said that since the petitioner was already termi nated due to his conviction and he was in jail from 2. 6. 1979 to 6 8. 1996, there was no occasion for DIGS to pass any order for his reinstatement particularly when he was not exonerated or acquitted but only further sentence was remitted by the Hon'ble Governor in exercise of power under Article 161 of the Constitu tion. It is said that the Joint Director of Education has passed the order after considering the entire facts and circumstances correctly and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.