- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. As common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, they are being dis posed of together.
(2.) THE core question is whether the petitioner shall retire at the age of 58 years or 60 years. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as lecturer in Biology on 5th July, 1964 in Maharaj Agrasen Inter College, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'institution' ). His date of birth is 31st July, 1939. On 30-6-1990 Sri B. P. S. Agarwal, the Principal of the institution retired from service. The petitioner was appointed as officiating Principal being the senior most lecturer in the institution. The U. P. Secondan- Education Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the (Commis sion) advertised the post of Principal treating the vacancy as substantive vacan cy. The petitioner applied for appoint ment and was selected by the Commission. On 29-8-1996 an appointment letter was issued by the Manager of the institution appointing him as Principal in pursuance of the directions of the Commission. The controversy arose regarding the date of retirement of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had sub mitted option on 22-12-1982 to retire at the age of 58 years. According to the petitioner he had submitted option on 26th July, 1983 and according to respon dent No. 8 the petitioner submitted his option on 22-12-1982. The District In spector of Schools counter signed the op tion form on 20-3-1986.
(3.) IT appears that a report was called by the Director of Education regarding the option exercised by the petitioner. The District Inspector of Schools submitted a report on 4lh March, 1997 to the Director of Education that the petitioner had not submitted the option form by the last date of submission of option form i. e. 31st December, 1982. The option form, of the petitioner is ineffective. Against this recommendation one shri Har Swarup Sharma alleging himself to be member Parent Teacher Association and President of U. P. Madhyamik Shiksha Sangh, filed writ petition. The writ petition was dis missed on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the writ petition. IT was further observed that if the option has been rejected by the District Inspector of Schools, the teacher is entitled to con tinue till he attains the age of 60years. Ashok Kumar Gupta, respondent No. 8. made a representation to District Inspector of Schools stating that the petitioner had submitted the repre sentation on 22-12-1982. It was Counter signed by the District Inspector of Schopls in token of acceptance of the option form on 20th March, 1986. The acceptance of said option was received by the petitioner in his own hand wrjting on 4-1-1991.;