RAM MURTI TRIPATHI Vs. INSPECTOR SANSKRIT PATHSHALAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 20-4-1979 (Annexure 5 to the petition), to the effect that temporary service of petitioner as Assistant Teacher would not be required after a month.

(2.) SOME portrayal of essential facts appears necessary. Shri Krishna Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Raniganj, Kathola, Pratapgarh, (for short the College) is an affiliated College of Dr. Sampurnanand Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and is governed by the provisions of U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (for short the Act) and the statutes framed thereunder. The College imparts education for the examination and degrees of Prathama to Acharya in Sanskrit language. The petitioner was appointed by a resolution of the Committee of Management dated 26-2-76 as Assistant Teacher with effect from 1-3-76 on probation for one year (Annexure 1 to the petition). The appointment of petitioner was approved by the Asstt. Inspector of Sanskrit Pathshalas. The petitioner completed the year of probation and his services were not terminated during probation period, rather the petitioner's services were approved by the Assistant Inspector of Sanskrit Pathshalas vide his letter dated 16-1-77 (vide Annexure 2-A to the petition). It is alleged that some deductions from the petitioner was made by the principal to which the petitioner and other teachers resented and the Principal replied that the Manager was responsible for the same (vide Annexure 4 to the petition). It appears that on account of the letter (Annexure 4 to the petition) the termination of service of petitioner was manipulated. The petitioner was not appointed as Science Teacher. He was attending the College but was not permitted to sign the attendance register. The petitioner alleged that the order of termination was manifestly erroneous inasmuch as he became permanent and was appointed in substantive vacancy. Hence his services could not be terminated by giving one month's notice.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties the points for our determination are as to whether the writ petition was maintainable at Allahabad or at Lucknow Bench; whether the petitioner was appointed after obtaining prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor as required by Section 31 (ii) (a) of the Act; and whether the recommendation of selection committee was communicated to the Vice-Chancellor for approval.