M. L Bhat, J. - (1.) THE petitioner's appeal against an order dated 6-6-77 filed by the petitioner on 27-1-86 has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 as barred by time. THE petitioner challenges the said order in this writ petition as also the basis order of his dismissal and prays for a writ of certiorari to quash the Impugned orders dated 6-6-77 and 1-12-86.
(2.) FOR proper understanding of the case, it is necessary to mention facts briefly. The petitioner came to be appointed as Head Master of Bundelkhand Purv Madhyamlk Vidyalaya, Hamirpur on 6-7-72. His services are said to have been confirmed on 31-1-74. His services were, thereafter terminated by a resolution dated 17-5-77 On coming to know about the order of management, the petitioner is said to have represented his case before respondent No. 2. The order of termination of the services of the petitioner was disapproved by respondent No. 2 on 18-5-77. Thereafter, there was some correspondence between the management of the institution and respondeat No. 2 and the order of termination of petitioner's services was approved on 6-6-77 without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that the order of termination was illegal inasmuch as no enquiry was held against the petitioner, nor was any charge-sheet given to him. His further case is that once the order of termination was disapproved it could not be approved subsequently at the back of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a civil suit in 1977. Respondent No 3 seems to have raised an objection of jurisdiction before the trial court. The trial court by Us order dated 27- 5-82 held that it had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Against the order of the trial court, respondent No 3 seems to have preferred a revision petition which came to be registered as Revision No. 19 of 1982. The revision was heard by lVth Additional District Judge. Revisional court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit by its order dated 17-4-85. The file was remitted back to the trial court which dismissed the suit on 7-11 85 and granted liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy from the proper forum. There upon the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 1 which was dismissed as time barred on 1-12-86. It is submitted that period for filing the appeal is six months but in this case the petitioner was pursuing remely in Civil Court against the order of termination of his services and an objection raised by respondent No 3 the Civil Court held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit; the appeal was filed after a period of six months. He. therefore, wants to set aside the order passed by respondent No. 1 and seeks a direction for hearing of the appeal by respondent No. 1.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties has argued that the appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No, 1 was hopelessly barred by time, therefore, it was rightly rejected. The petitioner's services were terminated in June. 1977. He could file an appeal thereafter within a period of limitation before respondent No. 1. He instead filed a civil suit which was not maintainable and pursued a remedy in wrong forum against the order of termination of his services, which remedy was not available to him under law, It is also stated by the respondents that the termination of the petitioner's services were never disapproved as contended by the petitioner.;