- (1.) SHISHIR Kumar, J. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the resolution) and appellate order dated 10. 2. 1998 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent Nos. 3, 2 and 1 respectively. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as holding the post of accountant and to provide him all consequential benefits in accordance with law.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as an accountant in the Agrasen Inter College, Harduaganj, District Aligarh. In the year 1990, one Sri Rajpal Sharma, Head Clerk retired and the petitioner being senior most was entitled to be promoted on the post, which came into existence due to retirement of Sri Rajpal Sharma. When the Committee of Management do not promote the petitioner on the post of Head Clerk, the petitioner was compelled to file a writ petition this Court and by order dated 2. 4. 1993 this Court had passed the following order: "the petitioner is claiming that he is entitled to be promoted on the post of Head Clerk. He has made a representation to the District Inspector of Schools to the same effect. THE District Inspector of Schools may decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with the rules expeditiously. THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of. " The respondents after coming to know of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Court, illegally promoted one Sri Nand Kishore, who was junior to the petitioner from back date. Then the petitioner filed another Writ Petition No. 28794 of 1993 challenging the appointment of Sri Nand Kishore on the post of Head Clerk. The writ petition is still pending and no counter affidavit has been filed. As promotion of Nand Kishore was wholly illegal and there was a hope that the petitioner will succeed in the writ petition, as such, the respondents started pressing the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. It was on 14. 6. 1995, the petitioner fell ill and he made an application for grant of leave. On 19. 6. 1995, petitioner sent an application for granting leave from 15. 6. 1995 to 14. 7. 1995 by registered post. The same was returned back as the principal of the college refused to accept the registry sent by the petitioner. Again a letter was sent to the Manager of the College alongwith the original application and the medical certificate dated 19. 6. 1995 and a copy of the same was handed over to the District Inspector of Schools. Respondent annoyed to the aforesaid act, so without any resolution the respondent No. 1 placed the petitioner under suspension on 18. 6. 1995. As the petitioner could not recover from his ill health on 16. 11. 1995, he made another application for extension of leave from 16. 11. 1995 to 30. 12. 1995 with a request that the medical certificate will be submitted when the petitioner will join. On 8. 12. 1995, the petitioner came to know through his son that a notice has been published in the 'dainik Jagran 'dated 6. 12. 1995 to the effect that the petitioner should obtain a copy of the charge-sheet up to 9. 12. 1995. As stated above, petitioner was ill and was not in a position to obtain the copy of charge-sheet, as such, he sent his son on 9. 12. 1995 with an application to handover the said charge-sheet but the Principal of the said institution refused to accept the same. Suddenly on 10. 1. 1996, the petitioner received an order dated 11. 12. 1995 sent under the postal certificate by which services of the petitioner have been terminated. The order dated 11. 12. 1995 has been passed without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry, therefore, the resolution and order dated 11. 12. 1995 is bad in law as no charge-sheet was ever served upon the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted whatsoever. The order is in contravention of Regulations 36 and 37 framed under the U. R Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The mandatory provision to this effect regarding seeking prior approval from the District Inspector of Schools was not obtained.
(3.) IT has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Committee of Management did not issue any show cause notice to the petitioner and was not afforded any opportunity of being heard passing the order impugned. The petitioner challenge the said order of termination by filing a Writ Petition No. 15171 of 1996 and this Court had passed the following order: "sri Manoj Gupta and Sri V. K. Gupta appear for the respondents. They pray for allowed two weeks time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter. Writ petition shall be listed thereafter for admission/final disposal in the first week of August, 1996. In the meantime operation of resolution passed by the Managing Committee dated 10. 12. 1995 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed. District Inspector of Schools is also restrained from taking any action thereon. " Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 30. 4. 1996, the Committee of Management preferred a Special Appeal mainly on the ground that order dated 10. 12. 1995 has not yet been given effect to as it is only a resolution and will take effect only after the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. On the basis of the aforesaid statement made by the Committee of Management, the Special Appeal was disposed of finally and directed the District Inspector of Schools to pass an order upon the proposal submitted by the Committee of Management. In spite of the direction issued by this Court, the District Inspector of Schools in stead of approving or disapproving the order has passed a detailed order without giving any reasons and without considering the representation of the petitioner, which was received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools on 5. 11. 1996. Against the order dated 10. 11. 1996, the petitioner filed a writ petition this Court and while disposing of the writ petition the petitioner was directed to approach the appropriate authority.;