- (1.) Heard Sri R.B. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
(2.) Petitioner admittedly was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Untrained) in Block Jagatpur vide order dated 25.01.1971 passed by Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat, Rai Bareilly. After enactment of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972"), the Schools maintained by Zila Panchayats were transferred to Board of Basic Education and thereafter it appears that petitioner was permitted to undergo B.Ed. course in Session 1973-74 by the then District Basic Education Officer, Rai Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as the "DBEO") vide order dated 02.08.1973, which is on record at page 97 of paper book. After completion of aforesaid course petitioner submitted her joining on 03.07.1974 but she was not allowed to join on the ground that she was granted study leave to undergo B.T.C. training and not B.Ed. and her services stand terminated. Petitioner represented against aforesaid termination which was ultimately rejected vide order dated 04.06.2009, where against she filed review and then Claim Petition No. 1072 of 2010 before State Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") which has been decided vide judgment dated 13.12.2013, impugned in this writ petition, whereby Tribunal has partly allowed claim petition and set aside order dated 04.06.2009 declaring that petitioner should be treated to have continued in service but would not be entitled for any salary for the period she has not worked. Tribunal has also held that her representation was wrongly decided since petitioner could not have been terminated orally. At the best, department could have taken action after holding departmental inquiry and, therefore, Tribunal has further directed respondents to pass a fresh order on petitioner's representation.
(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that at no point of time petitioner was terminated and since she was actually appointed by a written order, she could not have been terminated orally. Further, nonfunctioning of petitioner was for the fault of respondents inasmuch as she was allowed to undergo B.Ed. course in 1973-74 but on a totally misconceived and false premise that she was allowed to undergo B.T.C. training, she was not allowed to join after completion of B.Ed. course when she submitted joining in July, 1974 and thereby kept out of employment, patently illegally. Since she was appointed by a written order, which was not terminated by a written order, in law, she continued to work and would be entitled for all consequential benefits.;