Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has sought the quashing of the order dated 6th March, 2007 passed by the Director of Education (Madhyamik) U.P. Lucknow. He has also sought a direction that he should be permitted to continue in service till he attains the age of 62 years which is the age of superannuation prescribed under Regulation 21 contained in Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act').
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer (Sanskrit) in the Janata Intermediate College, Mau Aima, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the ''College') on 22nd July, 1971. He took charge as the Officiating Principal of the College on 12th September, 1998. THE dispute in the present petition is about the age of superannuation. According to the petitioner, his age of superannuation is 62 years whereas according to the respondents his age of superannuation is 60 years. When this dispute earlier came up before this Court, at the instance of the petitioner, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the Director of Education to decide the dispute in accordance with law after calling for the records from the Institution, as well as the Office of the District Inspector of Schools and after affording opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Director of Education decided the dispute against the petitioner by the order dated 6th March, 2007 by holding that his age of superannuation would be 60 years. In coming to the said conclusion, the Director of Education observed that the petitioner had submitted his option form on 30th January, 1992 in accordance with the Government Order dated 4th November, 1991 for opting that his age of superannuation will be 60 years. He has further observed that subsequently the petitioner had also sent a communication dated 1st July, 2003 to the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad for opting that his age of superannuation will be 58 years and the Associate District Inspector of Schools by the communication dated 6th August, 2003 had accepted this request of the petitioner. The Director of Education has, therefore, observed that even the last option given by the petitioner was to treat his age of superannuation as 58 years (now enhanced to 60 years) and, therefore, the representation was liable to be rejected.
(3.) I have heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri H.N. Pandey for the Committee of Management. The learned Standing Counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4. Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Prabha Kakkar Vs. Joint Director of Education, Kanpur and Ors., 2000 (2) ESC 1118, the acceptance of the option by the Regional Deputy Director of Education and its communication to the teacher was absolutely necessary and since in the present case the Regional Deputy Director of Education did not accept the option and nor was the acceptance communicated to the petitioner, it cannot be said that he had given option that his age of superannuation will be 60 years. He, therefore, submitted that under Regulation 21 contained in Chapter III of the Act, the petitioner was entitled to continue upto the age of 62 years and the view to the contrary taken by the Director of Education is incorrect.;