Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 21 (ALL)

Rani Devi v. State of U. P.

2010-01-04

SATISH CHANDRA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2010
Dr. Satish Chandra, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 1. The petitioner was appointed on 19.08.1969 as Temporary Assistant Teacher in a school run by Adhyaksha, Zila Parishad, Bareilly. Her services were terminated. The petitioner filed a Civil Suit in which there was a compromise between the petitioner and the Zila Parishad and she was allowed to continue up to 30.06.1972 subject to the condition that if the Government permits the petitioner to obtain training and on successful completion of training, the plaintiff shall be taken as a teacher. 2. There is nothing on record to show that on the establishment of the Basic Shiksha Parishad, the petitioner's services stood transferred or that she was called for training. 3. The petitioner had filed a writ petition No. 715 of 1972 along with one Smt. Girja Devi. The writ petition was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court on 27.03.1973 with the following order: "No ground has been made out for exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed" 4. The petitioner thereafter filed a Claim Petition No. 3797/III/1977 before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow claiming the same relief. The claim petition was dismissed on 23.03.1981 on the ground that the High Court had already dismissed the writ petition after consideration the merits of the case and when the matter had already been decided by the High Court, nothing remained to be decided by the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 9 (1) of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 provides that all the employees of the Schools of U.P. Zila Parishad taken over by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, shall become the employees of the Parishad. He has also relied upon the judgment of Basic Shiksha Parishad and another v. Smt. Sugna Devi and others; 2004 (1) AWC 526 SC, in submitting that if the services of such employees were not terminated their services stood transferred by operation of statute. 6. In the present case, the petitioner had filed a suit claiming a declaration of continuation of services as Temporary Assistant Teacher. There was a compromise between the petitioner and the Zila Parishad in which she was allowed to continue up to June, 1972 unless she was called for training. 6. In the present case, the petitioner had filed a suit claiming a declaration of continuation of services as Temporary Assistant Teacher. There was a compromise between the petitioner and the Zila Parishad in which she was allowed to continue up to June, 1972 unless she was called for training. There is nothing to show that the petitioner was called for training or that her services were continued even after June, 1972. The benefit of Section 9(1) of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, therefore will not be available to the petitioner, for the reason that the condition by which the petitioner was not allowed to serve after June, 1972, was accepted by her. 7. In any case, the High Court had decided the earlier writ petition on merits and did not find any good ground to exercise the power under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. It was thereafter not open for the Civil Court or the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal to consider the matter on merits. Hence, the impugned order requires no interference. 8. The writ petition is dismissed.