Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 51612 of 2009 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.C. Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri S.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the record.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as
Assistant Teacher vide order dated 8.8.1986, in Junior
High School Macrobertsganj managed by respondents no.
3 & 4 and his service conditions are governed by U.P.
Recognized Basic School (Junior High School
Recruitment and Condition of Services of Teachers) Rules,
1978 (hereinafter referred to as “1978 Rules”) wherein
the age of retirement has now been amended vide gazette
notification dated 25.10.2005 from 60 to 62 years and,
therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to retire at the age
of 62 years.
However, from a perusal of letter of appointment dated
8.8.1986 (Annexure 3 of the writ petition), I do not find
that the petitioner was ever appointed in accordance with
1978 Rules. Hence, to claim benefit in respect to age of
retirement, the petitioner cannot be permitted to base his
claim upon the said rules. On a query made by the Court,
learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any
averment or document in the writ petition indicating that
while making his appointment on 8.8.1986 the procedure
laid down in 1978 Rules was ever followed by respondents
no. 3 and 4. The procedure of appointment of a teacher in
Junior High School is contained in 1978 Rules. Since the
appointment of the petitioner itself has not been made
under and in accordance with 1978 Rules, ex facie, it is
void ab initio but since the petitioner has already been
made to retire by respondents no.3 and 4 and the
institution being unaided, it is not necessary for this Court
to go into this aspect any further, except of holding that the
petitioner having not been appointed under and in
accordance with 1978 Rules, is not entitled to take shelter
therein only for the purpose of age of retirement.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.1.2010
Akn