High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Bal Muni v. C/M & Others - WRIT - A No. 39858 of 1998  RD-AH 7868 (27 April 2007)
Court No. 26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39858 of 1998
Committee of Management Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Agra & another
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The reliefs sought by the petitioner in this writ petition are for quashing of the impugned termination order dated 12.10.1998 passed by the Manager of the Institution and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher and to pay his salary with effect from October 1998.
The petitioner was appointed on 15.7.1995 as Assistant Teacher in the Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Agra on probation for a period of one year only for teaching Commerce subject to IXth and Xth Class students.
Sri H. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are service rules framed for all the teachers and employees of such schools which are under the supervision and control of Bhartiya Shiksha Samiti, U.P., Saraswati Kunj, Nirala Nagar, Lucknow and recognized by the Central Board of Secondary Educatioin, New Delhi. The rules are called as Acharya and Karmchari Sewa Niyamawali. According to him as per provisions of Rule 4.1 of the aforesaid service rules the petitioner was liable to be automatically confirmed as he has never received any notice or information with regard to his termination or extension of service before the expiry of the probation period.
Sri Tripathi further submits that approval of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher was sought from the District Inspector of Schools which has not been given by him.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the averments made in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been specifically averred that the appointment of the petitioner was on probation for one year only. After completion of one year by the petitioner the management decided to advertise the post in a newspaper.
It appears that the petitioner applied for the post when it was advertised and he was again given a fresh appointment for a fixed period. Thereafter his appointment was extended from time to time, but since his services were purely temporary, vide impugned order dated 12.10.1998 his services were rightly terminated and consequently he has not been paid his salary from October 1998.
If the petitioner had become a permanent Assistant Teacher under Rule 4.1 of the aforesaid rules, then there was no question of his applying again for the same post and his re-appointment on a temporary post. On the other hand a perusal of the averments made in paragraph 8 of the Counter Affidavit shows that a specific stand has been taken by the respondents that the allegation of the petitioner that he had made a representation in this regard to the District Inspector of Schools is false as there is no such representation on record.
Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any representation to the District Inspector of Schools, Agra against his alleged termination. The writ petition has been filed against a private institution, hence it is not maintainable.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.