S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) SUBSTITUTION applications in the first two writ petitions have been allowed and Smt. Kalawati Devi widow of late Purshottam Pandey (petitioner in the said petitions) and another have been substituted at the place of the deceased petitioner. Purshottam Pandey original petitioner in the first two writ petitions was a clerk in Doma Bhagat Vidyalaya, Baghauli, Ballia which is a recognised Junior High School. In the first writ petition it has been mentioned that since January 1981 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ballia was functioning as receiver of the School. Original petitioner was suspended by the receiver on 19.5.1981 however the said order was revoked on 12.7.1982, It has been alleged that the Head Master did not permit the petitioner to join hence representations were filed and receiver in July-August, 1983 wrote some letters, to the Head Master in that regard i.e. for permitting the original petitioner to join and sign the attendance register. According to para-11 of the first writ petition an application was again sent by the original petitioner on 30.10.1985 to the receiver. In the year 1990 original petitioner wrote a letter to the Prime Minister who directed the District Educational authorities to look into the matter. Petitioner again made a complaint that Principal of the School had appointed his son Sudhakar Tewari and salary was being paid to him and not to the original petitioner. Thereafter an order was passed on 18.9.1991 by Basic Shiksha Adhikari for payment of salary to the petitioner. This order was passed on the margin of petitioner's application on the same date, copy of which is Annexure-9 to the writ petition. In the said application, it was stated that since December, 1980 till January 1991 salary had not been paid to the petitioner. In the said application it was stated that Principal had appointed Sudhakar Tewari his son as Clerk and salary was being paid to him. Thereafter on 4.12.1991 Accounts Officer passed an order, copy of which is Annexure-11 to the first writ petition to the effect that it was not possible to pay any salary to the original petitioner as he had approached Basic Shiksha Adhikari (B.S.A.) after 10 years. Through the first writ petition prayer for quashing of the order dated 4.12.1991 was made. In the first writ petition an order was passed by this Court on 28.2.1992 directing the S.D.M. to consider the case of the petitioner.
(3.) THEREAFTER, receiver/S.D.M. passed an order on 27.4.1992 opining that termination order of the petitioner dated 28.7.1984 was bad and against the principles of natural justice. The fact of termination was brought to the notice by Principal. However, S.D.M. clearly held that termination order could be set aside on appeal only by B.S.A. THEREAFTER on 17.7.1992 B.S.A. passed an order setting aside the termination of petitioner's services dated 28.7.1984. That order is Annexure-5 to the second writ petition. In the said order B.S.A. only mentioned that on 8.7.1992 Purshottam Pandey had given an application to the receiver and on the same date receiver noted on the said application that B.S.A. should take action. It was further mentioned that in view of order of High Court dated 28.2.1992 receiver had passed order on 27.4.1992 in which it was mentioned that services of Purshottam Pandey were terminated without complying with the provisions of natural justice. In view of the said observations B.S.A. through order dated 17.7.1992 set aside the order of termination of petitioner's services, dated 28.7.1984. B.S.A. did not record any independent finding regarding any illegality in the termination order of petitioners. In the order dated 27.4.1992 S.D.M./receiver had clearly mentioned that order of termination could be set aside by B.S.A. and not by him. Accordingly, the observation of B.S.A. that S.D.M. had held the order to be illegal is meaningless. In para-19 of the second writ petition it is mentioned that on 21.7.1992 petitioner had joined his duties and since then was working on the post of Clerk. In the second writ petition (of 1993) D.I.O.S. filed his counter-affidavit stating therein that services of Purshottam Pandey were terminated on 28.7.1984. In the counter-affidavit it was stated that order of In-charge B.S.A. dated 17.7.1992 was set aside by B.S.A. on 16.10.1992. It has also been stated that the then receiver was in collusion with the petitioner. It has also been stated that Sudhakar Tewari had been appointed at the place of petitioner and salary was being paid to him.;