ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the State.
(2.) PETITIONER being aggrieved by the order dated 24 -9 -2001, Annexure -14 to the writ petition, has filed the present writ petition, whereby pursuance to the direction issued by this Court in writ petition No. 21725 of 2001, Subhash Chandra Pandey and others v. District Inspector of Schools and others , decided on 2 -7 -2001, the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur decided the representation filed by the petitioner and has found that petitioner Subhash Chandra Pandey has since been nominated as on fix honourarium, the action of the committee of management that during the summer vacations all such employees and teachers, who have been appointed on fixed honourarium, would be relieved w.e.f. 1 -5 -2001 for two months. The District Inspector of Schools has further held that merely because the petitioner has been permitted to sign the attendance register during the summer vacations, will not get any right to continue because the principal cannot act contrary to the resolution of the committee of management, therefore the petitioner is not entitled for the salary for the period between 1 -5 -2001 onwards and the petitioner is further not entitled to claim anything beyond 1st of May, 2001 when he was relieved from duty. District Inspector of Schools held that in the interest of justice, the committee of management should have informed the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid decision, but has not stated that in the event of non -communication of the aforesaid order will have any impact of the order itself. As stated in the earlier part of the order since the petitioner has right only to work up to 30 -4 -2001, he is not entitled for any salary for the months of May and June, 2001. The District Inspector of Schools has further held that in future as and when any nomination for appointment is required, the petitioner may be appointed on priority basis. This order is under challenge. Admittedly, the institution concern has been functioning on a temporary recognition as an unaided institution. In these circumstances, the State cannot saddled with the liability of the payment of salary of the petitioner. Petitioner if feels that he is entitled for his salary, he may claim from the Management. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;