Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15722 of 2018 Petitioner :- Reenu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jai Krishna Tiwari
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and Sri J.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
Grievance of the petitioner is that although he was lawfully appointed but on account of complaint of the respondent no.4, his payment of salary has been stopped by an oral order. A notice dated 13.12.2017 was issued and the cause for stopping the salary was shown to be apprehension that the petitioner was not possessing necessary five years teaching experience. The aforesaid respondent no.4 has also filed a Writ A No.11954 of 2018, which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 17.5.2018, as under:
"Appointment in the year 2015 is sought to be challenged in this petition on the ground that the experience certificate relied upon to appoint respondent no. 5 was inadmissible. Except for making bald allegations, there is nothing on record to substantiate the plea that teaching experience of respondent no. 5 could not be considered. There is further no explanation given as to why the petition is being filed after 3 years of appointment. It is also not disclosed as to when the petitioner has come to know of all such facts.
Parity with Writ Petition No. 10033 of 2018 is also not liable to be extended to the petitioner since facts of that case was apparently distinct in as much information was obtained under Right to Information Act, where after complaint was made and the authority took cognizance of it also. There is otherwise no basis to show that the experience certificate possessed by the respondent no. 5 was not valid. The delayed challenge, which is otherwise not substantiated, is not liable to be entertained.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed."
Sri J.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the notice dated 13.12.2017 has neither been challenged nor a copy thereof has been filed alongwith the writ petition.
It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that no order has been passed pursuant to the aforesaid notice dated 13.12.2017.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the respondent no.2 shall take a final decision in the matter of petitioner with regard to payment of salary, within a time bound period.
In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent no.2 to pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, with regard to payment of salary to the petitioner, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent no.3 - Committee of Management.
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a reply before the Autority concerned within two weeks, pursuant to the notice dated 13.12.2017.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018/vkg