TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Kanya Pathshala, Mallawan in district Gonda on 22/03/1966 by the then President of District Board Gonda. Subsequently she was transferred to Paraspur. Later she was transferred back to Mallawan. Consequent to her prolonged illness she took leave between July 1970 and 14/05/1971 and thereafter between July 1971 and 29/12/1971. When she returned on 30/12/1971 the Headmistress told her that she was terminated from services. But she was not served with any termination orders. She was told by the Headmistress to approach the Zila Parishad to seek for a transfer. Accordingly she placed representation before the Chairman, Zila Parishad for transferring her to another school. Several follow up reminders for this representation was sent. By the ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Primarily the High Court relied upon the documents filed by Respondent No. 1 such as - the document that proves the payment of Rs. 80 as arrears, her transfer orders, joining reports, letter of Adhyaksha calling upon her to present her testimonials etc. and found that she was working as a teacher. High Court also noted that that the Zila Parishad has not disputed Sugna Devi's case nor was there any valid reason on record that shows that she was not working as a teacher. Another pertinent finding of the High Court is that once the name of a staff was found in the list, the Basic Education Board was under legal obligation to give reasons or explanation as to under what circumstances or for what reasons the services of that staff was not t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifficult to subscribe. We uphold the view adopted by the High Court and hold that Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a teacher. By virtue of the enactment of UP Basic Education Act, 1972 her service was transferred to the Basic Shiksha Parishad. Since her services were never terminated, why her name was missing form the list of transferred employees has to be explained by the Appellant No. 1. In contrast, Appellant No. 1 strongly maintained the stand that she was never in service. In the facts and circumstances of this case we find it difficult to accept this contention. Falling which, the case of the Respondent No. 1 that the competent authority duly appointed her as an assistant teacher and she was prevented from joining, as a teacher afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
