TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in Sanskrit w.e.f. 1st March, 1971 in Chaudhary Vishambhar Singh Bhartiya Vidyalaya Inter College, Auraiya, District Etawah. On the basis of certain charges, the petitioner was suspended and thereafter, he was charge -sheeted. A full -fledged enquiry was initiated in which the petitioner participated and full opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself. The Enquiry Officer submitted an enquiry report before the Committee of Management, which was convened for this purpose on 10.11.1991, but the same was adjourned on account of lack of quorum. The meeting of the Committee of Management was adjourned for 11.11.1991, on which date, a resolution was passed resolving to dismiss the petitioner. This resolution and necessary papers was forwarded for approval to the Commission under Section 21 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commissoin Act 1982. The Commission issued a show cause notice on 4.12.1982 and after considering the objection of the petitioner passed an order dated 18.5.1993 approving the dismissal of the petitioner. Consequently the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the order dated 18.5.1993 passed by the respondent No. 1 and the resolution dated 11.11.1991 passed by the Committee of Management resolving to dismiss the petitioner.
(2.) HEARD Sri Gajendra Pratap alongwith Sri K.J. Khare, the learned Counsels for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Shukla, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, Sri A.K. Singh, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the meeting was adjourned for 11.11.1991, no fresh notice was sent to the members of the Committee of Management for the adjourned meeting. Further the resolution was not passed by 2/3 rd of the members of the Committee of Management while passing the resolution dated 11.11.1991 and, therefore, submitted that since the resolution was not passed by 2/3rd of the members present and voting, the resolution dismissing the services of the petitioner was invalid and he was therefore, liable to be reinstated as a lecturer in Sanskrit.
(3.) IN Paragraph No. 17 of the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that no notice of the adjourned meeting was given to the members of the Committee of Management. The respondent No. 3 in paragraph No. 15 of his counter affidavit has denied the contents of the Paragraph No. 17 of the writ petition and contended that five members of the Committee of Management were given notice of the adjourned meeting. The respondent No. 4 in Paragraph No. 16 of his counter affidavit has also denied the contents of Paragraph No. 17 of the writ petition and contended that the intimation of the adjourned meeting was given to the members of the Committee of Management. This fact has not been seriously disputed by the petitioner in paragraph No. 22 of the rejoinder affidavit nor has the petitioner submitted any proof while denying the allegations made by the respondents.;