SHRI KANT CHAUBEY Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, DEORIA AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1980-2-118
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 07,1980

Shri Kant Chaubey Appellant
VERSUS
District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.N.Singh, J. - (1.)By means of this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution petitioner claims relief for Issue of a writ of mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and the Committee of Management as well as the Principal of the S. K. Inter College, Semra, pargana Sidhua jobna. tahsil Padrauna, district Deoria to pay petitioner's salary and to permit him to join his duties as Lecturer in the College.
(2.)Sri Krishan Inter College, Semra, tahsil Padruna is an aided and recognised institution. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in English by a duly constituted Selection Committee. The petitioner's appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria. The management terminated the petitioner's services on May 19 1974 and forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for obtaining his approval. The District Inspector of Schools by his order dated July 30, 1974 refused to grant approval to the management's proposal for terminating the petitioner's services on the ground that the petitioner had been appointed on probation and his services could not be terminated in the manner it had been done. The management committee thereafter filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education against the order of the District Inspector of Schools but subsequently the management committee withdrew the appeal so the appeal was dismissed. After withdrawal of the appeal the order of the District Inspector of Schools disapproving the termination of the petitioner's services became final but the Principal of the College did not allow the petitioner to join his duties nor he was paid his salary. The petitioner made several representations which brought no results. Ultimately the petitioner approached this court by means of this writ petition.
(3.)The main question which arises for determination is as to whether the petitioner was appointed on one year's probation or he was appointed oily for the session 1973-74. In the affidavit filed by Ram Adhar Misra, Principal of the College it is asserted that the petitioner had been appointed temporarily for the session 197,-74 only and as his services came to an end automatically on June 30, 1974 there was no necessity for the management to obtain approval of the District Inspector of Schools. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Soho- ls. In this counter-affidavit it hat been asserted that the petitioner had been appointed as Lecturer in English on one year's probation and the District inspector Schools had granted approval for the petitioner's appointment on one year's probation. Copy of letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated Aug. 16, 1973 communicating the order of approval to the Principal of S.K. Inter College has been filed as Annexure I to the counter-affidavit. On a perusal of the same we find that the District Inspector of Schools had granted approval for the appointment of 10 teachers in the college. In case of the petitioner, approval was granted for appointment one year's probation. The Principal has filed cables of the resolution of the Committee of Management to support his assertion that the petitioner was appointed for the session 1973-74 only. We are not inclined to accept the assertion made by the Principles he appears to be biased against the petitioner. The petitioner has been making complaints against the Principal to the higher authorities ever since his appointment in the institution. The Manager entered into a compromise in the present petition and agreed to take back the petitioner into service but the Principal has filed an affidavit denying the compromise and further asserting that Sri Awadh Misra is no more manager of the college. Having regard to these facts and circumstances we do not find any good ground to reject the assertion contained in the affidavit of Sri Vishnath Misra filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools. It is noteworthy that the Principal has not filed copy of the letter under which approval was granted for petitioner's appointment. On the other hand copy of that letter has been filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools which clearly supports the petitioner's contention that he had been appointed on one year's probation. In the circumstances we hold that the petitioner had been on probation as Lecturer in the college.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.