- (1.) The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher. She has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of her termination dated 12.2.1988. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari invited applications for appointment on direct recruitment of 1000 Assistant Teachers in a Senior Basic School run by the Board. It is stated that out of those newly created post twenty post were allocated for district Bareilly. The process for the recruitment against the appointment of the newly created post was initiated by the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. An advertisement was published in the newspaper. The petitioner applied against the said post. In pursuance thereof she was found suitable by the Selection Committee and appointment letter dated 2.8.1985 was issued in her favour from the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, under the seal and signature of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. A copy of the appointment letter is brought on the record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In compliance thereof the petitioner joined her post and started functioning. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 12.2.1988 terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that selection of the petitioner was irregular and against the Rules, thus it was terminated with immediate effect. It is stated that petitioner's services were terminated without giving any opportunity or notice and her appointment was made by the Selection Committee in terms of the Rules. The petitioner aggrieved by her termination order preferred writ petition before this Court. It is also stated that alongwith the petitioner one Km. Alpana Misra was also appointed on the same date by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari against the twenty newly created post and she has also preferred a writ petition against her termination order which is also dated 12.2.1988 by means of Writ Petition No. 4137 of 1988 (Km. Alpana Misra v. The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari (Women) Bareilly and another). This Court allowed the writ petition on 30.10.2003, and termination order dated 12.2.1988 was quashed. In the judgement of this Court it was mentioned that no counter-affidavit was filed and therefore the averments made in the writ petition was accepted as correct by the learned Single Judge and accordingly the writ petition was allowed. This Court directed the learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to seek instruction with regard to status of Km. Alpana Misra. In compliance of the order of this Court an affidavit has been filed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari wherein it is stated that Km. Alpana Misra is working in the institution and no Special Appeal was filed against the order of the learned Single Judge. A counter-affidavit has been filed. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad vide communication dated 17th September, 1984 has clarified that at first sanctioned post would be filled up after preparing seniority list of working Head-Master/Teachers in accordance with U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. In the present case no such procedure was adopted and the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sanskrit Teacher in Kanya Junior High School, Kajitola, Bareilly directly, as such the direct appointment of the petitioner is illegal. It is stated that in compliance of the order of the Secretary the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has issued termination letter who is the competent authority under the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad Teachers Service Rules, 1981. At the time of moving of the writ petition a Division Bench on 20.5.1988 stayed the termination order of the petitioner.
(2.) I have heard Sri B.B. Paul learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by A.B. Paul, Advocate and Sri K.S. Shukla learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari the respondent No. 1 herein.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the perusal of the appointment letter it is established that the petitioner was appointed through proper Selection Committee by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and after three years of service without any notice or opportunity her services have been terminated on wholly non existent grounds. He further urged that Rule 5 of The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (in short Rules, 1981), provides that in case a teacher is not available for promotion then the post can be filled by the direct recruitment. He further urged that similarly placed Assistant Teacher is still continuing and neither any special appeal nor recall application has been filed against the judgement of this Court in Km. Alpana Misra's case.;