GH MOHD BHAT Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was temporarily appointed as Chowkidar by the District Education Officer, Srinagar, respondent No: 1. herein vide order No. DEO/ 4280 -82, dated -20 -12 -1985: - in the pay scale of Rs. . 45 -640 plus usual allowances and was placed on probation for a period of two years. By the same order, he was adjusted in boys Secondary School Lar against the newely created post sanctioned vide Government order No 276 -Education 85 dated 6 -7 -1985. read with Government order No : 854 -Education -85 dated 3 -12 -1985. The Principal concerned was directed to verify the age, qualification and State Subject certificate of the appointee before allowing him to resume the duties.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the above mentioned order he joined his duty on 8.1.1986 and was allowed to perform his job as & Chowkidar. In the month of November 1986 the Principal of the School, respondent No. 2, herein, took away the keys from him and since then he is not being allowed to perform his duty without any reason. He approached the said Principal many a times and asked for a copy of an order in case his services were terminated. The Principal has refused to do so without disclosing any reasons. He has been paid only one months salary although he has actually worked for a period of eleven months.

(3.) THE petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition under Section 103 of the Constitution of J & K and read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus for the releases of his an ears of pay and also for a writ of prohibition directing the respondents not to prevent him from discharging his duties as Chowkidar. In the first instance, the Court issued notice to respondent No : 2 only to show cause against the admission of the writ petition. Mr. B. A. Khan, learned Addl. Advocate General appeared in the court on his behalf on 2 -7 -1987. He was given two weeks time to file the objections. The objections were not filed with the result that on 21 -9 -87, the writ petition was admitted to hearing. After admission of the. writ petition, fresh notice was issued and Mr. M. Aziz Government Advocate accepted notice for all the respondents. He was directed on the same day to file the reply affidavit within three weeks time. He failed to file the counter within the stipulated period. Consequently, on 7 -ll -1987, he was again given three weeks further time to file the counter which was treated as the final opportunity in this behalf This opportunity also was not availed of, and, therefore, the petition was listed for hearing. Unfortunately, the case could not be taken up for hearing for about a year, though it was listed for the same once and again On 2 -3 -1989 when the case was again listed for hearing, nobody appeared for the respondents. The name of Mr. M. Aziz was very much shown in the cause -list. He appealed in some other cases listed on that day, but did not choose to appear in this case till the court rose for the day. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner was heard.