JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. Through this writ petition petitioner, who was Head Master in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School, Mohiapur district Ghaziabad, has challenged his termination order passed by respondent No. 3 Committee of Management of the said school as well as appointment order of respondent No. 4 Sri Raghunandan at his place. District Basic Shishksha Adhidari through order dated 16.9.1988, copy of which is annexure 7 to the writ petition permitted respondent No. 3 Committee of Management to terminate the services of petitioner on the basis of report of enquiry dated 15.8.1988, resolution of Committee of Management dated 4.2.1988 and enquiry report of Regional Inspector dated 20.7.1988. Permission was required and granted under Basic Shiksha (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules 1978 (Rule 15). Against the said order appeal was filed before Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, which was dismissed on 8.11.1989 on technical grounds.
2. Petitioner admittedly did not come to school from 22.9.1986 till 24.5.1987, which was the basis of termination of his services. Annexure 27 to the counter affidavit is the resolution of committee of management respondent No. 3 according to which a committee was constituted to enquire into the charges against the petitioner and according to the report of the said committee, petitioner did not come to school from 22.9.86. On 30.9.86, watchman was sent to the house of the petitioner who reported that petitioner was out of station. Thereafter information was sent to B.S.A on 6.10.1986 together with information was also sent to the petitioner, directing him to come to school on 20.10.1986 who sent application for leave from 23.10.1986 till 24.11.1986 which was not accompanied by the medical certificate hence Manager of the institution sent a registered letter to the petitioner on 12.11.1986 to submit the medical certificate of C.M.O. Thereupon petitioner changed the ground of his leave and sent application with the new ground that he was not in a position to perform his duties hence he must be granted leave from 24.11.1986 to 24.5.1987. Said application was rejected and communication in that regard was also sent to the petitioner through registered letter dated 28.11.1986. Thereafter, peon was sent to the residence of the petitioner on 14.7.1988, however, petitioner was not found at his residence. Thereafter again on 6.12.1987, a registered letter was sent to the petitioner to appear but of no avail. Thereafter a notice was published on 8.1.1988 in the daily Hindi newspaper "Dainik Jagran" directing the petitioner to appear within ten days even then petitioner did not appear. Thereafter meeting of the committee of management was called on 4.2.1988. In the said meeting, resolution was passed wherein it was mentioned that petitioner was working as Deputy Manager in Sri Subhash Inter College Kheri Bhanaur which is the home town of the petitioner. In the entire writ petition the thrust of the petitioner is that even though he tried to join his duties but management refused to permit him to do so.
3. It has been held in AMU v. M.A. Khan that in case employee challenges the termination order on the ground that opportunity of hearing was not given to him then in the writ petition he must show that in case opportunity had been provided to him then what defence he would have taken. In the entire writ petition even the nature of the illness from which petitioner was allegedly suffering has not been given. It has not been explained that how in October 1986, Doctor had given him certificate to take rest for future six months i.e. until 24.5.1987. For want of proper explanation the case of the petitioner can not be accepted. Even B.S.A considered the matter on merit and got the enquiry conducted by the Regional Inspector.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited an authority of this court reported in Amir Ullah v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2006 (3) ESC 2021. In the said authority termination merely on the ground of absence was found to be defective. In the instant case opportunity of hearing was also provided. Moreover in the aforesaid authority, the authority of AMU v. M.A Khan (Supra) has not been considered. The aforesaid authority of AMU has been again referred to by the Supreme Court in VC B.H.U v. Srikant. It may be mentioned that in the B.H.U. case termination order was set-aside on the ground that employee over stayed leave due to reasons beyond his control. In the instant case there is no such allegation.
5. Accordingly I do not fine any error in the termination order hence writ petition is dismissed.