- (1.) RAKESH Sharma, J. Heard Sri S. K. Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THIS writ petition was admitted on 4-9-1990 and 15 years have passed but no counter-affidavit has been filed in this case despite several opportunities have been given to opposite parties. No one has also put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was formally and regularly appointed by the management of Dwarikadhish Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Korauna on 1-1-1984. His appointment was approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sitapur vide order dated 30-12-1983 under Para 10 (5) of U. P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, Thus, the petitioner has acquired status of a regular employee. Thereafter, the institution was brought under grant-in-aid in July, 1984. The petitioner's name finds place in the establishment of the institution as a member of teaching staff. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that vide order dated 18-4-1986, his services were terminated by the management of the college. No approval by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari was sought before terminating the services. It has been indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner has acquired status of the confirmed employee after completion of period of probation. It was indicated in the order of appointment issued on 1-4-1984 that the petitioner was being appointed as Assistant Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 450-700 on one year's probation. A person is put on probation only against the permanent post. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has acquired status of a permanent teacher after satisfactorily completing the one year's period of probation. The petitioner is fully qualified, trained and fit for regular appointment as Assistant Teacher in a recognized High School. He was B. A. , B. Ed. Three additional posts of Assistant Teachers were created in the institution in addition to 5 already existing posts against one of which the petitioner was engaged and has continued. Thus, there was no administrative exigencies to terminate the services of the petitioner. Considering the number of students, work and posts, the petitioner ought to have been allowed to continue in the specific post of the above mentioned institution.
(3.) THIS Court had been pleased to pass an interim order on 19-12-1989 which is still in vogue, directing the opposite parties to keep one post of Assistant Teacher reserved in the institution and thus a post of Assistant Teacher is still available on which the petitioner can be accommodated. In this case, no counter-affidavit has been filed for the last 18 years. The writ petition was admitted on 4-9-1990. It was the duty of the opposite parties to file a counter-affidavit. In absence of the counter- affidavit, this Court may proceed on the basis of assertion made in the writ petition which remain uncontroverted till date and in view of the decision of Hon'ble She Supreme Court in Choksi Tube Company Limited v. Union of India, 1997 (11) SCC 179.;