- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. As per the averments made in the petition the petitioner was granted L. T. Grade long time back and the respondent No. 4, Nan-hoo Mai Sharma filed a writ petition bear ing No. 28141 of 1995 before this court claiming the benefit of L. T. Grade from back date. The said petition was disposed of finally by order of this Court dated 28-9-95 and it appears from the said order which is contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition that the present petitioner was a party in the said writ petition and as per the averments made by the respondent No. 4 that the present petitioner was appointed much later than the respondent No. 4 and the present petitioner had wrongly been given the L. T Grade witheut consider ing the claim of the respondent No. 4. The petition filed by respondent No. 4 was dis posed of with a direction to the Director of Education to decide the controversy after hearing the present petitioner and other necessary parties.
(2.) IN pursuance of the order of this Court dated 28-9-95, the Director of Education issued notices to the present petitioner, respondent No. 4, Committee of Management and the principle of the institution. The notices were issued on 26-11-95, 26-12-95 and 22-1-96 which are contained in Annexure 7 to 9 to the peti tion. IN pursuance of the said notices, all the parties including the present petitioner appeared before the Director of Education and made their submissions. After hearing all the parties the impugned order dated 19-6-1996 was passed. While deciding the said repre sentation the claim of respondent No. 4 was rejected and it was found that petitioner had also been wrongly given the L. T grade and thus the petitioner was also deprived of the said benefit. Being ag grieved and dis-satisfied the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that the present petitioner was a party in the earlier writ petition, the order dated 28-9-95 was passed without hearing the petitioner. The said order of this Court does not adversely affect the petitioner as it simply directed the competent authority to decide the claim as in the earlier writ petition there had been specific allegation and averments made by the respondent No. 4 that the present petitioner had wrongly been given the L. T Grade. This Court had specifically directed the competent authority to decide the dispute after giving opportunity of hearing to the present -petitioner also and the present petitioner was heard and the impugned order was passed after considering his submission. Thus, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force and is rejected.
(3.) THE second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice as the petitioner had never been given a notice to show cause as to why he should not be deprived of the L. T grade given to him earlier. In view of the fact that there had been specific allegation in the writ petition Siled by respondent No. 4 before this Court that the present petitioner had wrongly been given the L. T. grade and the present petitioner was impleaded in the said writ petition and this Court while passing the order dated 28-9-95 specifical ly directed the competent authority to decide the issue after giving the oppor tunity of hearing to the present petitioner, it is not open for the petitioner to raise this issue as the petitioner was the only teacher from the said institution who was given the notice and opportunity of hearing. The order of this Court dated 28-9-95 was in the knowledge of the petitioner and he was fully aware of the averments and allega tions made in the said writ petition that he had wrongly been given the benefit of L. T grade as is evident from the order dated 28-9-95 itself. I find no force in this con tention also and the same is hereby rejected.;