- (1.) THIS Special Appeal arises from the judgment rendered by a learned Judge of this Court on 25 November 2013 by which Writ Petition No.64096 of 2013 that was filed by the appellant was dismissed.
(2.) THE said petition had been filed for quashing the order dated 21 December 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Lalitpur whereby the representation dated 22 October 2009 filed by the appellant pursuant to the directions issued by the Court on 13 August 2009 was rejected. The appellant had also sought a relief that the Committee of Management should permit him to join the Institution as Headmaster and make payment of salary. The subsequent representation dated 5 August 2013 filed by the appellant pursuant to the directions issued by the Court on 16 July 2013 in Writ Petition No.1738 of 2010 was also rejected by the District Inspector of Schools, Lalitpur on 29 June 2013 and the earlier order dated 21 December 2009 was confirmed. The appellant had, therefore, also sought the quashing of the order dated 29 June 2013.
(3.) SINCE the first representation dated 22 October 2009 was decided by the District Inspector of Schools pursuant to the directions issued by the Court on 13 August 2009 in Writ Petition No.64201 of 2006 filed by the appellant, it is necessary to refer to the said directions which are as follows: - "Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain as to why and in what circumstances from the year 1989 till 2006 the petitioner could not attend the School at all and why he made representation after almost 17 years and that too to the District Inspector of Schools, Lalitpur seeking permission to join the School in question. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was ever prevented by the Committee of Management of the School to work in School and therefore, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner could not discharge his duties in the School due to any act attributable to the Management Committee. However, I do not want to record any finding of fact on this issue since this question involves investigation of facts and therefore find it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to make a representation before the District Inspector of Schools, Lalitpur, who shall examine the matter and find out whether non -joining of the petitioner in the School was for the fault attributable to the petitioner or he was prohibited by the Committee of Management of the School. In case the finding is recorded by the District Inspector of Schools that the fault lies with the petitioner, he shall not be entitled for the salary for the period he did not work. However, in case the default is found on the part of the Committee of Management of the School, the District Inspector of Schools shall pass appropriate order and it is open to the respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 to recover the amount of salary paid to the petitioner, if any, for the period he did not work in the School at all from the Management Committee of the School. The District Inspector of Schools shall pass a reasoned order, as directed above, within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order along with the representation, as directed above. There shall be no order as to cost." The decision taken by the District Inspector of Schools on 21 December 2009 to reject the representation dated 22 October 2009 filed by the appellant was assailed by the appellant in Writ Petition No.1738 of 2010 which was allowed and the order was set aside with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order in the light of the directions issued by the Court on 13 August 2009.;