B.L. Yadav, J - (1.) THE petitioner a class IV employee of the Sharda Devi Uchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Naudhiha Tarhar, tahsil Barah, district Allahabad, has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 26 -9 -83 passed by the Principal of the College and the order, dated 22 -9 -88 passed by the District Inspector of Schools deciding the appeal or revision of the petitioner in pursuance of the order of remand passed by a Division Bench of this Court directing as follows: - - After hearing counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, we are of the opinion that since the representation of the petitioner was not decided by the management against his termination the petitioner approached the District Inspector of School under Regulation 32. The District Inspector of Schools should have decided the same on merits. We hereby direct the District Inspector of Schools to do so within two months of the presentation of a certified copy of the order. The factual metrics of the case is that petitioner alleged to have been appointed on 1 -7 -78 as water peon and worked till 26 -9 -83 when the institution was raised upto the High School from Junior High School and on 26 -9 -83 the services were terminated by the Principal. The petitioner preferred a representation. The petitioner was getting salary since the date of his appointment from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Allahabad and his name was shown in the Manager's return as an employee of Class IV. Out of the five Class IV employees the petitioner was the senior most, The representation of petitioner was dismissed as time -barred The Court, however, has already directed to decide the matter on merits and the relevant portion of the order of this Court has already been quoted.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that as the Division Bench of this Court by its judgment, dated 9 -7 -86 has directed the District Inspector of Schools to decide the representation on merits, which obviously connotes that irrespective of the formal defect including the representation being time -barred, the same must have been decided strictly in accordance with legal rights of the petitioner and not just on the ground that the same was time barred. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, urged that the word 'merit' connotes decision on some formal defect including the claim or representation being time barred, and it does not mean that the representation has to be decided strictly on the basis of legal rights of the petitioner. Learned counsel for other respondents was also heard.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that as the Division Bench in its judgment, dated 9 -7 -87 (Annexure -3 to petition), has directed the District Inspector of Schools to decide the representation on merits, hence it has to be ascertained as to whether the District Inspector of Schools was justified in rejecting the representation of the petitioner as time -barred, or he must have ignored the same rather treating it to be within time and must have decided the same strictly in accordance with legal rights of the petitioner.;