Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.1.1978, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, passed by the Committee of Management for terminating his services with effect from 7.11.1977. The allegation of the petitioner is that the impugned order of termination has been passed by the manager without obtaining any prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools, as required under Section 16G (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 16G (3) of the Act provides that order of suspension of a teacher including the Head Master of the institution can be passed after obtaining the approval of the District Inspector of Schools of the concerned district. The writ petition was earlier allowed by the learned single Judge vide judgment dated 17.2,1993 on the ground that prior to the approval of the District Inspector of Schools, the termination was not taken as consequence of which the petitioner is deemed to be in service of the college and the order of termination is a clear violation of Section 16G (3) of the Act. The order of termination was illegal and the respondents were directed to pay to the petitioner his arrears of salary with effect from the date his services were terminated and shall continue to pay his salary till a valid order of termination is passed to bring to an end of his services.
(3.) AN application for recall of the judgment dated 17.2.1993 was filed on the ground that incorrect facts have been mentioned in the writ petition by the petitioner. It was stated in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the recall application that the termination order was passed after obtaining approval from the District Inspector of Schools and against the order of approval passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Regional Deputy Director of Education. Vide order dated 11.2.1994 this Court suspended the operation of the judgment and order dated 17.2.1993 until further orders. Time was also granted to file counter and rejoinder-affidavits. The recall application was again dismissed by this Court and the stay order. If any, was vacated. Thereafter on 28.11.1994 a restoration application was filed, which was allowed vide order dated 15.3.2002, recalling the order dated 24.11.1994. In the mean time a contempt application was filed by the petitioner for payment of arrears of his salary, etc. Under the fear of contempt petition, the arrears of salary, etc. was paid to the petitioner. However, the order granting approval to the termination of services of the petitioner was not challenged by him and the same became final. No statutory appeal also was filed challenging the order of approval to the termination of services of the petitioner under Section 16G (3) of the Act. The writ petition has come now before this Court for hearing.;