Sri Ram Kishore and Ors. vs State of U.P.through Secretary Department of Education,Government of U.P.Lucknow & Ors.

M. Katju, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.J. Hasnain for the respondents. Petitioners have challenged the order of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Farrukhabad, dated 17101996 which is annexed as Annexure6 to this writ petition and the order of the Secretary Board of Basic Education U.P. Allahabad dated 2.101996. It appears that the petitioners were appointed in Junior Basic Schools, but subsequently their services were terminated by the impugned order, hence this writ petition.

2, . In paragraph 39 of writ petition it is stated that the petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. In para 37 it is alleged that the enquiry report has not been supplied to the petitioners.

Similar controversy has been decided by me in writ petition No..29154 of 1996 Brijesh Kumar Yadav v. State of UP. decided on 8111996. [Since reported in 1997(1) LBESR 206 (All)]. Hence following the aforesaid decision I direct that the copy of the enquiry report shall be supplied to Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner with in two weeks and the petitioners may make a representation to the Director of Education (Basic) with in three weeks thereafter i.e. by 24121996 and the Director will decide the said representation by a speaking order by 721997 in accordance with law. It is made clear that in view of the fact that it is not reasonably possible for the Director to decide each separate representation the petitioners may file a single comprehensive representation before the Director who will decide the same by a speaking order dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioners. No personal oral hearing need be given by the Director.

With these observations, this writ petition is finally disposed of.