KIRAN TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EARLIER Smt. Kiran Tiwari, petitioner had filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3119 of 2009 before this court and this court on 27.1.2009 passed order asking District Basic Education Officer, Lalitpur to take decision in the matter. Brief background of the case is that petitioner had been working as Shiksha Mitra at Primary Pathshala of village Baijnath (Gundarapur), Post Office Patha, Block Mahrauni, District Lalitpur since 2006. On inspection being carried out on 7.8.2008, she was found absent, thereafter resolution was passed by the Gram Shiksha Samiti on 22.8.2008, pointing out that petitioner had been performing and discharging her duty casually, thereafter she should be removed. Petitioner submits that thereafter another resolution was passed on 26.8.2008 mentioning therein that earlier resolution was passed on complaint, but petitioner has been performing and discharging her duty diligently and sincerely and petitioner be permitted to continue in service. Petitioner has contended that she continued to perform and discharge her duties and remuneration has been paid till February, 2009. Thereafter, advertisement was issued inviting application, wherein the name of petitioner's institution was also shown, at the said juncture Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3719 of 2009 had been filed, then District Basic Education Officer was asked to take decision in the matter and thereafter, decision has been taken rejecting the claim of petitioner. At this junctureb present writ petition has been filed. Sri. Suresh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case totally arbitrary treatment has been meted to the petitioner and her services have been arbitrarily dispensed with, as such order in question is liable to be quashed and petitioner is liable to be reinstated back in service. Countering the said submission, learned Standing Counsel Sri Jitendra Kumar and Sri Anuj Kumar on the other hand contended that rightful view has been taken in the matter, as such no interference be made with the impugned order in question. After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position, which is emerging in the present case is that petitioner had been performing and discharging her duty as Shiksha Mitra. Qua functioning of the petitioner, complaint was made that petitioner has not at all been performing and discharging her duties diligently and sincerely. On 7.8.2008 inspection was carried out in the institution concerned and at the said point of time, petitioner was found absent in the institution and no leave application whatsoever has been given to the Headmaster of the institution. Gram Shiksha Samiti on 22.8.2008 passed resolution resolving therein that Smt. Kiran Tiwari is staying at Block Mahrauni, District Lalitpur and rarely comes to the institution and as such her services are liable to be removed. After the said resolution was passed, papers were transmitted to the District Basic Education Officer, Lalitpur, thereafter vacancy in question was advertised and name of Km. Priyanka was finalized for the post of Shiksh Mitra, and in between Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3719 of 2009 had been filed wherein direction was given to take decision on the representation. District Basic Education Officer in the present case has recorded categorical finding of fact that after resolution had been passed on 22.8.2008, at no point of time, any subsequent resolution has been passed and sent in favour of the petitioner. This fact has come on record, that subsequent to the same letter was sent on 22.8.2008, but no fresh resolution had come, cancelling the earlier reoslution of Gram Shiksha Samiti and mere letter dated 26.8.2008 was send. District Basic Education Officer has recorded categorical finding of fact on this score that as far as resolution is concerned, no fresh resolution has been passed and further no explanation has been furnished as to why for making fresh de-novo resolution had been sent. District Basic Education Officer has noted the conduct of the Gram Pradhan as well as conduct of the petitioner also qua absenting herself on the date of inspection. Once resolution dated 22.8.2008 had not been cancelled, then said resolution continued to hold the field and this finding of fact which has been returned by the District Basic Education Officer, Lalitpur cannot be faulted and is correct view. Consequently, writ petition as it has been framed and drawn is dismissed.