- (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and discloses an extraordinary set of circumstances.
(2.) THE petitioner, Khalil Ahmad, was appointed an Assistant Teacher in the Abdul Karim Khan Higher Secondary School, Amroha, district Moradabad. As per the letter of the Manager of the school dated 28- 10-1965, he was appointed on probation for one year with effect from November 1, 1965. His services were terminated some time in 1966. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the order of dismissal. This petition was allowed by Dwivedi, J. on May 17, 1967 and the order terminating the services of the petitioner was quashed. The only plea pressed on be half of the Management of the School in that petition was that the petitioner was a temporary employee and, therefore, the management could terminate his services at will. It was held by Dwivedi, J. that Section 16-G (3) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act was applicable to temporary teachers as well and, as such, his services could not be terminated without the appro val of the District Inspector of Schools. Thereafter the petitioner's services were again terminated by an order dated 17th April, 1968. That order stated that the peti tioner's services were no longer required because he was appointed without the ap proval of the District Inspector of Schools. This order was also challenged by means of a writ petition. Satish Chandra, J. allow ed this petition on July 21, 1969 holding that the plea that the petitioner's appoint ment was without the requisite approval of the District Inspector of School had been raised in the first writ petition but had not been pressed and, as such, such a plea was barred by the principles of res judicata. The petitioner's services have been terminat ed for the third time by an order dated 28-4- 1970. The present writ petition seeks to challenge that order. The impugned order is in Hindi and when translated in English reads: "your services are no longer required by the Insti tution. Therefore, your services are termi nated with effect from May 31, 1970 in accordance with the order of the District Ins pector of Schools, Moradabad." The recital in the impugned order that the petitioner's services were being terminated in accordance with the orders of the District Inspector of Schools is not correct. It appears that the Management of the School, after the judg ment of this Court in the second writ peti tion, passed a resolution to the effect that the petitioner's services were no longer re quired by the Institution. This resolution was sent to the District Inspector of Schools with the request that the permission be granted for terminating the petitioner's ser vices. The District Inspector of School wrote back saying that since his initial ap pointment had not been approved, the ques tion of granting permission for his removal did not arise.
(3.) IN the counter-affidavit filed in this petition, the old plea has been taken that as the petitioner was a temporary hand and his appointment had not been approved by the District Inspector of Schools, there fore his services could be terminated at any time. This plea is clearly barred by the deci sion in the earlier two writ petitions. It is true that in accordance with the observa tions of Satish Chandra, J. the management did apply to the District Inspector of Schools for permission to terminate the petitioner's services, as required by Section 16-G (3) of the U. P. Intermediate Educa tion Act, but no such permission has been granted by the District Inspector of Schools.;