- (1.) Heard Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 19.6.2012 passed by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Lucknow-respondent no.2, and has further prayed for direction restraining the respondents from taking any action on the basis of the impugned order and not to interfere in his working as Lecturer in Physical Education in Sri Hanuman Vidya Inter College, Baraon, Deoria and to pay him regular monthly salary including arrears of salary from January, 2011 till date.
(3.) This Court vide order dated 18.7.2012 had entertained the writ petition and passed following interim order:- "Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4. Issue notice to respondent no. 5. Six weeks time is allowed to each one of the respondent to file counter affidavit. Two weeks time thereafter is allowed to file rejoinder affidavit. List this matter after eight weeks. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was appointed on ad-hoc basis and his appointment was approved by the order of District Inspector of Schools, Deoria dated 31.08.1982. Petitioner submits that thereafter after completing ten years of service pay-scale of L.T. Grade Teacher was accorded to him. Petitioner further contends that under the provision of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 benefit of regularisation has been extended to him and necessary communication was issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria dated 9th July, 1995 and thereafter he has been performing and discharging duties. Petitioner stated that after more than 28 years of service, a communication has been sent by the State Government addressed to Director of Education (Secondary) on 11.02.2011 referring to some complaints against the appointment of petitioner under Section 16 E (10) of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921. Petitioner stated that he had filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16467 of 2011 before this Court as his salary has been withheld and this Court at the said point of time this Court directed the Director of Education to examine the matter and pass appropriate orders. Petitioner submits that Director of Education (Secondary) has proceeded to pass an order holding the appointment of petitioner to be invalid and directing termination of service in exercise of authority under Section 16 E (10) of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921. Petitioner has placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Asha Saxena Vs. S.K. Chaudhary, 1991 2 UPLBEC 1202 for the proposition that authority under Section 16 E (10) should be exercised within a reasonable period and in the said case such authority in question has been exercised after delay of 17 years and the said action has not been approved of. Petitioner submits that in the present case the said exercise in question is being undertaken after more than 28 years and same is not a reasonable period. Prima-facie the arguments so advanced appears to have some substance and requires enquiry of this Court as it is reflected that the impugned action in question has been taken after inordinate delay of 28 years. In view of this, till the next date of listing pursuant to order dated 19.06.2012 no action be taken.";