- (1.) M. Katju, J. In this case this court by order dated 22-2-1995 directed notices to be issued to the respondents by registered post returnable by 10-4-1993 and further directed the respondents to file counter affidavit by the date fixed. Deposits this order no one has appeared for the respondents for has any counter affidavit been tiled. In the circumstances. I am holding service to be sufficient under Explanation II of Chapter VIII, R. 12 of rules of the Court. Since no counter affidavit has been filed I am presuming the allegations in the petition to be correct.
(2.) THE petitioner Ishrat parveen was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher in Harman Gmaniar School, Varanasi on 7-6-1990. Photo copy of the appointment letter dated 7-6-1990 is Annexure 1 to the petition. THEreafter the petitioner was transferred permanently as Physical Education Teacher to Harman Gmanier School, Sector 29 Faridabad, Haryana vide order dated 21-7-1991 (Annexure 2 to the petition ). Subsequently, it appears that the peti tioner was transferred to Varanasi as is evident from the order dated 20-9-1993 (Annexure 3 to the petition ). It is stated in the said order that she is a quali fied person and should be considered for higher post as and when available, THEreafter by order dated 21-7- 1994 on the recommendation of the co-ordinate the petitioner was placed in the grade of Rs. 1,400- 2,600, vide Annexure 4 to the petition. Annexure-5 is a certificate, dated 30-6-1994 showing that the petitioner's work has been good. It is stated in paragraph 12 of the petition that subsequently the petitioner's marriage was about to settle and she asked for a few days leave from the respondent No. 3 the Principal of the School. In paragraph 13 it is stated that the respondent No. 3 asked the petitioner to apply for relieving her for the purposes of marriage and that after marriage she can again join the institution. In paragraph 14 it is stated that the petitioner moved an applica tion on 5-1-1995 asking for leave but the respondent No. 3 passed a relieving order, vide Annexure-6. In paragraph 16 of the petition it is stated that unfortunately the person with whom the petitioner was to be married died. The petitioner then made representation dated, 6-1-1995 asking the respondent No. 3 to cancel the relieving order, dated 5-1-1995 and to reinstate the petitioner, vide Annexure 7. However, the petitioner was not reinstated she was offered her provident fund. It is stated that the action of the respondent No. 3 is arbitrary and the peti tioner is suffering mental, social and financial tension due to cancellation of the aforesaid marriage as well as relieving order.
(3.) IN my opinion, this in really an unfortunate case and the respondents should have taken a more humanitarian view of the matter. Since the peti tioner's marriage could not be solemnised due to death of her fianc she is not to be blamed in any way and the action of the respondent, in my opinion, is arbitrary. IN the circumstances I set aside the relieving order, dated 5-1-1995 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner within two weeks of production of a certified copy of this judgment before the respondent No. 3 and to pay her salary regularly thereafter. How ever, she shall not be paid any back salary. The petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .;