RADHESHYAM PATHAK Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows : Sharada Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nawakheda, (hereinafter referred to as "the School") is a school run by respondent No. 4, a Society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 1973, The petitioner and respondent No 5 are teachers in that school. During the period when the Governing Body of the Society was dissolved, D. N. Singh, Deputy Collector, Ujjain, was appointed as the Administrator, who continued to function in that capacity till the year 1980. On 12-7-1979, the Administrator forwarded the representation of the petitioner to respondent No. 2, the District Education Officer, in connection with the demand of the petitioner for arrears of his emoluments. In reply to that letter, respondent No. 2 informed the Administrator by the letter dated 20-12-79 (Annexure 2) that the emoluments paid to the petitioner were in accordance with the rules governing the grant; that grant for only one post of Upper Division Teacher was sanctioned; that if any additional post of Upper Division Teacher was created, the Society was responsible for payment of salary to the incumbent of that post and that the person earlier appointed to that post was, therefore, entitled to get the salary of the post of Upper Division Teacher and that the petitioner was not entitled to get the salary as an Upper Division Teacher. Thereafter representations were made by the petitioner but as he did not get any relief, he has filed this petition. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that, by the letter Annexure 2, respondent No. ?, had demoted the petitioner and that respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to do so.

(3.) In the return filed on behalf of the State, it is averred that respondent No. 2 had not passed any order demoting the petitioner; that according to the service-books, respondent No. 5 was senior to the petitioner; and that as grant for one post of Upper Division Teacher was sanctioned, the petitioner was not entitled to get salary of Upper Division Teacher from the treasury.