- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. In Bareilly there was a society known by the name of Shiksha Dalit Samiti. It was running two primary schools, one at Nagaria Kalan and other at Surkha, both in District Bareilly. The Society was also getting grant in aid from respondent No. 3 Zila Harijan Evam Samaj Kalyan Adhikari, Bareilly learned Standing Counsel has stated that now both the schools of the society have been taken over by Harijan Evam Kalyan Vibhag. Both the basic schools were/are recognised under U. P. Basic Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1972. Petitioner was appointed in the basic School at Nagaria Kalan. Petitioner also obtained B. T. C. Training during her service. Petitioner in the year 1986 was transferred to the school at Surkha as services of Smt. Usha Rani, a teacher there, had been terminated. Termination of Smt. Usha Rani was set aside on 21. 12. 1987 by Zila Harijan Evam Samaj Kalyan Adhikari Bareily and thereafter she joined her post. It was also directed that the services of the junior most teacher should be terminated. The management terminated the services of the petitioner through order dated 2. 1. 1988 which has been challenged through this writ petition.
(2.) IN this writ petition stay order was granted on 14. 7. 1988 staying the op eration of impugned order dated 2. 1. 1988 until further order. IN view of the said stay order petitioner is still teaching. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that by virtue of circular dated 20. 9. 1978 it was necessary to seek prior approval of respondent No. 3 be fore making any appointment and as the petitioner was appointed without any such approval hence her appointment was illegal. As petitioner was appointed in the year 1976, hence circular of 1978 is not applicable upon her. Secondly, in the impugned order it has not been mentioned that services of petitioner are be ing terminated on the ground that her appointment was illegal. The argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner might be junior most in the school at Surkha, only if her posting in the said school is taken to be starting point of her service. However, she was senior to all other teachers at Surkha if seniority is counted from the date of initial ap pointment. The argument is quite correct, hence accepted.
(3.) ALTERNATIVE argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that peti tioner was appointed at the school in Nagaria Kalan and she was transferred to the school at Surkha hence in case there remained no vacancy in the school at Surkha then she could have been transferred back to Nagaria Kalan. This argument is also quite correct, hence accepted. Accordingly, I find that the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner is patently erroneous in law. The said order is therefore set aside. Writ petition is allowed. However, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are at lib erty to either retain the petitioner at the school at Surkha or transfer her to the school at Nagarian Kalan. Petition Allowed. .;