PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EARLIER, petitioner had filed Special Appeal No.169 of 1997, wherein this Court on 02.05.2001 had given liberty to the petitioner to represent the matter before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari was asked to consider and decide the matter by reasoned order. Pursuant to said order, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari took up the matter and held that the services of the petitioner had been rightly dispensed with. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed. Counter affidavit has been filed, and therein it has been sought to be contended that action taken is strictly in accordance with law and no relief can be accorded to the petitioner. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed disputing the averments mentioned in the counter affidavit, and reiterating those mentioned in the writ petition. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners, contended with vehemence that in the present case totally arbitrary order has been passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari ignoring all important aspects of the matter, as have been pointed out by the petitioner, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed. Countering the said submission, learned Standing Counsel, as well as the counsel representing the Managing Committee of the institution, on the other hand, contended that the finding of fact returned is rightful finding and no interference be made. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges is that the petitioner was appointed in the institution concerned on temporary basis in the year 1972. Petitioner functioned till 20.05.1977. Admitted position is that with effect from 21.05.1977 till 03.08.1980, the petitioner did not function, and during this period, petitioner claims to have been on leave without pay and had functioned at Sarvoday Junior High School, Angadpur, Kanpur Dehat. The Committee of Management of the institution has clearly disowned the certificate showing grant of leave without pay. The institution in question on 05.01.1990 was declared as minority institution. Petitioner was re-appointed in the institution on 04.08.1980 and functioned till 16.08.1984, and thereafter, his services were dispensed with on 02.12.1984 being untrained teacher. Sequence of the events clearly demonstrates that the appointment of the petitioner was temporary as an untrained teacher, and in this background, the Committee of Management has taken decision not to retain such a teacher. The petitioner had not functioned in the institution for 10 years continuously, as such benefit of exemption from training could not have been accorded to him. In this background, once conscious decision has been taken after considering each and every relevant factor, then looking to the nature of appointment, the action taken cannot be said to unjust or wrongful action, as such this Court refuses to interfere in the matter. Consequently, writ petition as has been framed and drawn is dismissed.