Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.
(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the respondent no. 4 institution came on grant-in-aid list by Government Order dated 2.12.2006 w.e.f. 1.12.2006. The Manager's report with regard to the teaching and non teaching staff said to be working in the respondent no. 4 institution was alleged to be incorrect. For this purpose, several persons filed the representations before the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad Region, Allahabad. The representations were decided by order dated 19.4.2008 passed by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad Region, Allahabad after hearing all the parties concerned and a finding was recorded that as per records available, the Manager of the respondent no.4 institution, manipulated the records and illegally included names of certain persons in the Manager's report showing them to be working before the institution came on grant-in-aid list. However, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he has not challenged the said order dated 19.4.2008 passed by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad.
(3.) It shall not be out of place to mention here that after the aforesaid order dated 19.4.2008 was passed by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad, Writ-C No.48300 of 2010 (C/M, Janhitkari Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sujaula and another), was filed, which was disposed of by order dated 13.8.2010, as under: 'The petitioner committee of management alleges that the respondent no.6 to 9 are not qualified to be appointed as Head Master/ Assistant Teacher by a recognized Junior High School. In view of qualification prescribed under Rule 4 of the U.P. Recognized Basic School (Junior High School Recruitment and Condition) Service of Teachers Rule 1978. Hence this petition. Petitioner's representation in that regard made before respondent no.5, District Basic Shiksha Adhikari Allahabad has not been considered. In such facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered opinion that the grievance of the petitioner needs attention of respondent no.5 at the earliest. Accordingly the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation ventilating all his grievances before the respondent no.2 within two weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order. On such a representation being made the respondent no.2 shall call for the records and shall pass a reasoned speaking order preferably within four weeks after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent no. 6 to 9.' ;