- (1.) By means of this petition , petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.11.1998, whereby the respondent no.1, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etawah/Auraiya, dis-approved the resolution passed by the petitioner -Committee of Management of Junior High School, Rosangpur, Auraiya, to terminate the services of respondent no.2 Shri Brijesh Kumar Dwivedi as Assistant Teacher in the said school.
(2.) It appears that Sshri Brijesh Kumar Dwivedi, the respondent no.2 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid Junior High School on 14.8.1992. His appointment was also approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Subsequently Shri Ram Naresh Pandey and Jagdish Narain Shukla, who were also candidates for appointment on the aforesaid post, made complaints against respondent no.2 on the basis of which after making preliminary inquiry, the respondent no.2 was placed under suspension vide order dated 25.6.1997 by the petitioner. The respondent no.1 revoked the order of suspension vide his order dated 8.9.1997, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32259 of 1997 was filed in this Court by the petitioner which was finally disposed of by judgement and order dated 26.9.1997. It was directed by this Court that the petitioner shall conclude the inquiry within 2 months and in case the inquiry is not concluded within the said time, it would be open to respondent no.2 to submit representation before the petitioner to revoke the order of suspension, Even if the suspension order is revoked, it will be open to the petitioner to continue with the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, chargesheet was framed and suplied to the petitioner. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted on the basis of which the petitioner-Committee of Management on 23.01.1998 resolved to terminate the services of respondent no.2 A copy of the resolution alongwith the record of the case were thereafter submitted to the respondent no.1 for his approval. The respondent no.1 on receipt of the papers regarding termination of the services of respondent no. 2formulated as many as 4 questions for determination in the case which were answered in a negative and in favour of respondent no.2 by him and the respondent no.l thereafter disapproved the resolution passed by the petitioner on 23.1.1998. The respondent no.l has also revoked the suspension of respondent no.2 and directed for his re-instatement and payment of salary with effect from the date he was placed under Suspension. The petitioner was directed to submit the salary bills for the period the respondent no.2 remained under suspension by his order dated 27.11.98 which is under challenge in this petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the order passed by respondent no.l dated 27.11.1998 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. He has referred to and relied upon the provisions of Rule 10 of U.P. Recognized Basic Schools Rule, 1978. It was urged that the respondent no.1 could at the best, if he was not satisfied dis-agreed with the resolution passed and the recommendation made by the Committee of Management with the direction that the matter shall be re-considered by the Selection Committee. He had no authority to reject the recommendation out- rightly.;