J.M.L.Sinha, J. - (1.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Ram Nayan Shukla (hereinafter called the petitioner) praying that the orders dated 28th May, 1979 and 24th July, 1979 be quashed and a direction be issued to the respondents to treat the petitioner in service and to pay him his salary.
(2.) The petitioner's case, briefly stated, is as follows:- "The petitioner was inutility appointed as Assistant teacher temporarily for six months on 1-1-1974 in Mewa Lal Gupta Gurakul Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Grokhpur (hereinafter called the Institution). Thereafter on 1st July, 1974 the petitioner was again appointed as assistant teacher for one year. The petitioner claims that in July, 19 4 he was appointed on probation for one year and. on the expiry of the period of probation, became a confirmed teacher. Since the petitioner, it is alleged, was being paid a salary of Rs. 156 per mensem only, he made a demand in May, 19 8 that he should be paid his full salary at the rate of Rs. 330 per month. This annoyed the management of the institution with the result that the petitioner was not permitted to discharge his duties and sign the attendance register with effect from 1st July, 1978. 1 he petitioner sent some letters in that connection to the District Basic Education Officer but that also proved abortive. On 13th July, 1980 the respondent No. 2 passed a resolution that the petitioner's services stood terminated with effect from 31st May, 1978. This was approved by the District Basic Education Officer. Feeling aggrieved against it the petitioner has come up to this Court".
(3.) The case has been opposed on behalf of the respondents. The defence set up by them is that the petitioner was a temporary employee, that his appointment was approved by the District Basic Education Officer only till 30th June, 1977 and thereafter the committee of management granted extension to the petitioner for the period till 30th June, 1978. According to the respondents the appointment of the petitioner for the period after 30th June, 1977 did not have the approval of the District Basic Education Officer and, therefore, conferred no status on the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 has further pleaded that since the petitioner did not furnish necessary documents, which be was directed to do earlier, and since he also did not attend the college at any time after 1st July, 1978, his appointment was terminated with effect from 31.6.1978. The respondents contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.;