Ashok vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 8254 ALL

Citation : 2014 Latest Caselaw 8254 ALL
Judgement Date : 11 November, 2014

Allahabad High Court

Ashok vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 11 November, 2014

Bench: Rajan Roy




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 59
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43171 of 1999
 

 
Petitioner :- Ashok
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- H.S.N. Tripathi,A.N. Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.P. Singh,A.P.Tiwari,A.R. Singh,H.C. Singh,S.S. Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Heard Sri Amar Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.C. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 and Sri K Sahi, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

The petitioner herein is said to have been appointed in the Madarsa Jiyaul Uloom- respondent no. 6 on 1.9.1990,, which is a private Madarsa, but is said to be aided by the State Government. It is said that subsequently the management of the Madarsa terminated the services of the petitioner on 1.3.1996.

Learned counsel for B.S.A. submits that the institution was a minority institution therefore no approval of the Educational Authority was required in the matter of such termination.

Petitioner herein challenged the order of termination before this court by means of Writ Petition No. 24779 of 1996, which was disposed of with the direction to the Assistant Director Basic Education Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur to decide representation of the petitioner, in pursuant to which Asstt. Director while deciding the representation held the termination of the petitioner from service to be illegal vide his order dated 30.11.1998. This order is said to have been challenged by the management of the Madarsa-respondent No. 6 herein before this court by means of Writ Petition No. 49353 of 1999 which is connected to this writ petition and is still pending.

The issue herein is the entitlement of the petitioner to salary from the funds of the State Government.

Neither petitioner nor the respondents are in a position, as on date, to inform the court as to the relevant Act or Rules which would apply in the matter and shall cover the controversy which arose way back in the year 1992 and thereafter in the year 1996.

Two weeks time is granted to the learned counsel to address the Court on the aforesaid issue and to the applicability of the relevant Act and Rules in the matter.

List immediately after two weeks.

Order Date :- 11.11.2014

M.A.A.