Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2685 of 2019 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shashi Kant Verma
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri S. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 4. Sri S. K. Verma, learned counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.3. Sri Prahlad Kumar Bhardwaj, learned counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.6.
In view of the order passed in the writ petition, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent no.5. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayer:-
"1- To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash/stay the impugned order dated 20.3.2018 passed by the respondent no.3 (as contained Annexure No.3 to this writ petition)"
II- To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent nos.2 to 6 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Instructor for Health and Physical Education in the Purva Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Razipur, Block Kamalganju, District Farrukhabad.
III- To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent nos.3 & 6 to pay the honorarium of the petitioner since 01.07.2017 to February, 2018."
The facts in brief are that petitioner was appointed on the post of Instructor for Health and Physical Education vide letter dated 24.6.2013 and subsequently he joined the aforesaid post in the Purva Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Razipur, Block Kamalganju, District Farrukhabad on 1.7.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that upto 2018 the petitioner performed his duties without any break and no complaint whatsoever has been made against the petitioner at any point of time and he is also getting remuneration for the aforesaid period. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition it is contended that the Headmaster of the institution namely Sri Krishna Kumar/respondent no.6 having its own intermediate college in the name of Jhalkari Bai Inter College, Ganga Gali, Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad always pressurizing the petitioner to go there to teach the students and when the petitioner refuse to accept request of the respondent no.6 he was not permitted to continue on the post of Instructor.
In this regard an order dated 20.3.2018 was also passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad (annexure 3 to the writ petition) and the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on various grounds.
Supplementary affidavit was filed today stating therein that the respondent no.3 while passing the order dated 20.3.2018 did not discuss the recommendation made by the authorities in favour of the petitioner. It is further contended that the order dated 20.3.2018 was passed by the respondent no.3 under the influence of respondent no.6 whose wife Smt. Rambeti Sankhwar was the President of the Kamalganj Nagar Panchayat, District Farrukhabad.
In the circumstances, the arguements were raised that the order impugned passed by the respondent no.3 is liable to be set aside and the petitioner be permitted to function on the post of Instructor in the institution in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgement delivered by this Court in Writ A No.21297 of 2016 decided on 10.5.2016.
No useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending hence with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh comprehensive representation ventillating all his grievances before the respondent no.3 along-with certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the respondent no.3 is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a further period of six weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that honorarium for the period of 1.7.2017 upto February 2018 was wholly illegally with-held by the respondents. While deciding the representation the respondent no.3 is also directed to look into the aforesaid aspect of the matter and if the aforesaid honorarium was not paid, the same is to be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months.
With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is disposed of finally.
It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case and thus it is for authority concerned to take a decision independently in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 Pramod Tripathi