AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishna Murari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.
Petitioner claims that he was appointed as a Clerk in the institution in question on 04.06.1992. However, when the appointment was not approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, he filed Writ Petition No. 36918 of 1993. Vide judgment and order dated 25.05.2004, it was found that the appointment has been made without obtaining prior permission of the Regional District Inspectress of Girls Schools, as such, he was not entitled for payment of salary from the State exchequer.
It appears that thereafter the Management of the institution terminated his services vide order dated 26.12.2008, against which the present writ petition has been filed.
It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that since the termination order has not been approved by the District Inspector of Schools in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as such, the same is illegal.
The argument is totally misconceived. The initial appointment of the Petitioner was not approved and the claim made by him was dismissed vide order dated 25.05.2004 and, thus, the Petitioner cannot be held entitled to be in service for payment of salary from the State exchequer as the appointment was not in accordance with the Rules. Further the Committee of Management, which is a private body, has terminated the services of the Petitioner and the same is not open to challenge in the writ petition.
The writ petition, accordingly, fails and stands dismissed.