Aloke Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) THE order dated 24.7.1997 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia caused grievance of the petitioner making him to challenge the said order by this writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in C.T. grade on the recommendation of selection committee headed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 21.4.1985 when the Manager of the institution was one Chhotey Lal Gupta. Such appointment was granted financial approval by the order dated 13.5.1985. The petitioner accordingly joined the institution and continuously discharged duties. It has been stated that the father of the petitioner Mr. Jagannath Chaudhary was neither member nor Manager of the said institution from 1984 to January, 1994. In February, 1994 in the election of the committee of management, Mr. Jagannath Chaudhary, the father of the petitioner had been elected as Manager of the said institution and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari by his order dated 24.2.1994 attested the signature of the father of the petitioner. It is further stated that on political interference the Chief Development Officer Ballia/District Magistrate by his letter dated 19.4.1997 issued show cause notice to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his reply on 29.5.1997. Thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia by his order dated 24.7.1997 held that the petitioner is not duly qualified for the said post and his employment was terminated as the committee of management suppressed information. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order indicated that the said authority came to a finding that the petitioner's appointment was illegal as Jagannath Chaudhary, the father of the petitioner was the Manager of the said institution and therefore there was violation of Article 6(1) of U.P. Recognised Basic School (Junior High School) (Condition of Services of Teachers) Niyamawali, 1978.
(2.) THE impleaded respondent who made complaint on which the impugned order was passed, contended that though Mr. Jagannath Chaudhary, the father of the petitioner was not the Manager at the time of appointment of the petitioner, he was member of the committee of management and as such violation of law was there. To this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complaint on which the impugned order was passed, was that the father of the petitioner was a Manager of the committee of management at the time of appointment of the petitioner and this resulted in illegality. The concerned authority was considering the said allegation and there was no consideration of the said allegation that the father of the petitioner was a member of the committee of the management at the time of appointment of the petitioner. At this stage the impleaded respondent sought for liberty to disclose documents which were before the authority and weighed with the authority while passing the impugned order. Therefore, this Court by order dated 12.11.1997 granted opportunity for filing a short counter affidavit. Thereafter, the matter was again considered and parties were heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to said document disclosed alongwith the short counter affidavit filed by the impleaded respondent and contended that none of them indicate that the complaint related to the membership of the father of the petitioner of the committed of management at the time of appointment of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the said document for the purpose of contending that the said document clearly indicate that consideration was as regards membership of the father of the petitioner of the committee of management at the time of appointment of the petitioner.
(3.) AFTER considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and the materials available as also the impugned order itself, I do not find that the said authority while passing the impugned order was considering the fact that the father of the petitioner was a member of the committee of management. It appears that the entire consideration was whether the father of the petitioner was the Manager of the committee of management at the time of appointment of the petitioner. The documents disclosed by the impleaded respondent alongwith his counter affidavit do not support the contention of the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality as the father of the petitioner was not the Manager of the committee of management at the time of appointment of the petitioner in year 1985. The authorities concerned while passing the impugned order does not appear to have considered as to whether the father of the petitioner was a member of the committee of management and the same resulted in any illegality. In that view of the matter the contention of the petitioner finds support and the impugned order can not stand. Therefore, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.7.1997 at annexure No. 7 to the writ petition to the extent it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. But, I make it clear that this order will not prevent the right of any of the parties for consideration of the matter as regards validity of the appointment of the petitioner on any other ground.;