Thursday, November 21, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Allahabad High Court questions state government on termination of teacher with 30 years of service on basis of invalid degree

The Allahabad High Court has asked the state government to file the reply on the petition within four weeks, staying the order of termination of service of a teacher working for thirty years on the basis of invalid degree of National Institute of Correspondence, Kanpur.

A Single Bench of Justice Prakash Padia passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Dwijesh Kumar Tiwari.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.1.2023 passed by the respondent no 2-Director of Education (Secondary), U.P, Lucknow. By the aforesaid order services of the petitioner has been terminated.

It is argued by Senior Counsel for the petitioner that impugned order has been passed exercising the powers under Section 16E (10) of Intermediate Education Act, 1921, after 30 years of appointment of the petitioner and when he has been absorbed in regular establishment.

Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon an order dated 05.04.2022 passed in Writ A No 4558 of 2022 (Govind Prasad Dwivedi Vs State of U.P and 4 others).

The order dated 05.04.2022 is as follows:-

“Heard Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel assisted by A.T Pandey, counsels for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.2.2022 passed by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P, Lucknow, which has been passed to give effect to the order dated 19.7.2011 passed by the Court in Civil Misc Writ Petition No 29888 of 2011 (Vinod Kumar Upadhyaya Vs. State of U.P and others).

Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned order has been passed exercising the powers under Section 16E (10) of Intermediate Education Act, 1921, after 22 years of appointment of the petitioner and when he has been absorbed in regular establishment.

Even if the order in the case of Vinod Upadhyaya (supra) is admitted to applicable to the petitioner, the same was passed after 11 years. About 11 years have passed and there is no explanation as to why respondents did not complied the same within reasonable time as per Full Bench decision of the Court in case of Dr Asha Saxena Vs S.K Chauhan and others, (1990) 1 UPLBEC 516.

Issue notice to the respondent No 5 through ordinary process and R.P.A.D returnable within four weeks.

All the respondents will file the counter affidavit within four weeks,

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List this case on first week of July, 2022.

Until further orders, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 09.2.2022 passed by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P, Lucknow, shall remain stayed. The petitioner shall be permitted to work and draw his salary.”

It is admitted between the parties that the controversy involved in the case is identical in so far as length of service of the petitioner is concerned, the Court noted.

In view of the aforesaid, the Court opined that the direction as has been granted by Coordinate Bench of the Court in the case of Govind Prasad Dwived (supra) be also granted to the petitioner.

“Issue notice to the respondent No 5 through ordinary process and R.P.A.D returnable within four weeks.

All the respondents will file the counter affidavit within four weeks.

Until further orders of the Court, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 12.1.2023 passed by the respondent no 2- Director of Education (Secondary), U.P, Lucknow, shall remain stayed. The petitioner shall be permitted to work and draw his salary.

List this case in the first week of July, 2023″, the Court ordered.

spot_img

News Update