B.D.Agarawal, J. - (1.) The petitioner is Assistant Teacher in Acharya Narendra Deo Inter College, Patharadeva, Deoria. On August 14, 1977 the Committee of Management resolved to accord promotion to the petitioner to the L.T. Grade from C.T. Grade in which he was placed earlier. This resolution was sent for approval to the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria - respondent no. 2. Since there was no reply received from the respondent no. 2 in this behalf there was another resolution passed by the Committee of Management on April 3, 1983 wherein it appears tile petitioner was considered for promotion to the Lecturer's grade. On April 23, 1983, the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria wrote to the Management intimating that the resolution dated 14th August, 1977 had not been received in his office. The Management contended that a copy of resolution had been duly sent and aggrieved against this order of the District Inspector of Schools they preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education under paragraph 7 of the U.P. Secondary Education Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1981. The appeal has been dismissed summarily by the Deputy Director of Education on May 1984 with the observations that in view of the Government orders dated September, 22, 1983 and November, 1, 1983 no appeal is any longer maintainable against such an order. Aggrieved, the petitioner has now approached this Hon'ble Court.
(2.) Learned Counsel contends that the view taken by the Deputy Director of Education - respondent no. 1 to the effect that the appeal did not lie cannot be sustained. The cause of action in this, case, it will appear, accrued long before the Order of 1981 aforementioned came into force. It was on 14th August, 1977 that the Committee of Management had resolved to accord promotion to the petitioner in the L.T. Grade and it is this resolution to which approval was sought from the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria. In so far as the reply of the respondent no. 2 to the effect that the resolution was not received in his office is concerned, it is clear from the averments made in paragraph 10 of writ petition that the resolution has been received in the office of the respondent no. 2 on 16th August, 1977. Despite time granted no counter affidavit has been put in rebuttal to this factual averment. It is to be taken as established that the copy of the resolution had been duly received in the office of the respondent no 2 and by not taking any action thereon as appearing from the reply dated 23rd April, 1983 the respondent no. 2 has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him under this statute. The appeal ought to have been decided in these circumstances on merit instead of being rejected on ground that it was not maintainable.
(3.) For the reason Stated above, the petition succeeds in part and is accordingly allowed. The Deputy Director of Education 7th Region, Gorakhpur respondent no. 1 is directed to re decide the appeal on merit expeditiously in accordance with law on merits. No. order as to costs. Petition party allowed.;