ATUL KUMAR TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Respondent No. 2 dtd. 26/10/2021 by which his representation to condone his absence for the period from 2003 to 2006 on the grounds of serious illness and his reinstatement in service, was rejected.

(2.) The petitioner is a male, aged 42 years, who had passed his higher secondary examination in 1994 from the Government Higher Secondary School, Surkhi, with second division securing 59%. Thereafter, he completed his graduation in B.A. subject in the year 2002 from Bhoj (open) University, Bhopal. Vide order dtd. 10/1/1997 a resolution was passed by the Permanent Education Committee of Janpad Panchayat, Sagar appointing Guruji (Samvida Shala Shikshak Class-III) in various E.G.S. under the Shiksha Guarantee Scheme. The Petitioner was selected and on 11/1/1997, the Gram Panchayat, Surkhi, issued an appointment order in the name of the petitioner appointing him for a temporary period. On 26/1/1997, the petitioner had taken charge on the post of Guruji in the E.G.S. Centre, Parditola and started his work on 27/1/1997.Thereafter, the petitioner says that he became a patient of heart disease and was unable to discharge his duties as Guruji (Samvida Shala Shikshak Class-III) in E.G.S. Centre, Parditola, Gram Panchayat, Surkhi. Between 1998 to 2006, the petitioner was taking treatment continuously from various doctors and was away without leave for the duration on account of which, his services were terminated by the respondent.

(3.) In his declaration at paragraph 2, the petitioner has mentioned that this is the third petition before this Court. Earlier he had filed W.P. No.7274/2013, which was dismissed as withdrawn by his previous counsel without taking any such instructions from the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P. No.9324/2013, in which this Court had passed the order dtd. 24/8/2021 by which the petitioner was directed to prefer a detailed representation before the respondent No.2, which has been dismissed by the order impugned in this case.