Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1585 (ALL)

Ajeet Kumar v. State of U. P.

2015-06-19

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 6 June 2015 passed by the fourth respondent, whereby their services on the post of Assistant Teacher in different Institutions have been terminated on the ground that they were wrongly extended the benefit of Government Order dated 19 June 2014. 2. It seems that the Government framed a policy whereunder the persons working as Shiksha Mitras in various primary schools were given 10% reservation for acquiring BTC training. The petitioners herein also availed the benefit of the aforesaid policy decision of the State Government and obtained BTC training during the year 2011. After they have completed their training, in accordance with the Government Order dated 19 June 2014, they were given appointment as Assistant Teachers in various Institutions. Now by the impugned order dated 6 June 2015, the fourth respondent had held that the Government Order dated 19 June 2014 would not be applicable to the petitioners, as they have completed their training in 2011 batch, and were not working as Shiksha Mitras on the date of issuance of the Government Order. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the fourth respondent has misconstrued the Government Order dated 19 June 2014. It is submitted that the benefit of the Government order in question could not be denied to the petitioners whose initial appointment as Shiksha Mitra was of the period much before the issuance of the Government Order. It is further contended that in pursuance of notices issued by the fourth respondent, the petitioners have submitted their detailed replies. One such reply filed on 30.5.2015 by petitioner no.2 has been brought on record as Annexure-19 to the writ petition. Therein, the petitioner had taken a categorical stand that there is a specific Government Order dated 14.8.2012, whereunder the appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Teacher was rightly made. It is submitted that without at all considering the reply submitted by the petitioners, the impugned order has been passed by the fourth respondent and it is, thus, in breach of principles of natural justice. 4. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Sri Saurabh Yadav holding brief of Sri Shivam Yadav appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Sri Saurabh Yadav holding brief of Sri Shivam Yadav appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 & 5 very fairly stated that in case the petitioners approach the fourth respondent with a representation, the same would be considered in accordance with law. 5. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and regard being had to the fact that the impugned order has been passed without considering the reply submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notice issued to them and also without taking into consideration the Government Order dated 14.8.2012, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served in permitting the petitioners to approach the fourth respondent with individual representations along with certified copy of the order. In the event, such a representation is made within three weeks from today, the fourth respondent shall decide the same, in accordance with law, within a period of next two months. Until the fresh decision is taken by the fourth respondent on the representation, which would be made by the petitioners, in pursuance of the liberty granted to them by this Court, the order dated 6 June 2015 shall be kept in abeyance. It shall thereafter abide by the decision, which would be taken by the fourth respondent on the representation of the petitioners. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.