The first appellant is the Principal, Ayurvedic College, District Pilibhit U.P. and the second appellant is the Director of Ayurvedic and Unani Services, Lucknow U.P. The third appellant is the State of U.P.through Collector, Pilibhit, District Pilibhit U.P. The respondent No.1 was appointed as Science demonstrator in Lalit Hari Ayurvedic companylege, Pilibhit U.P. In the year 1966, the District Magistrate was appointed as a Receiver in the College.
Thereafter, the order dt.28.08.1972 of the Vice Chancellor along with all the papers were sent to the Government for companysideration on 10.10.1974.
In the instant case, according to the appellants, numbersuch option was given by the respondent No.1 within the stipulated time.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have companye to this Court by filing the Special Leave Petition.
The science section in the companylege was closed down in the year 1971 1972 and, thereafter, the post of lecturer in science in the companylege was also abolished and the respondent No.1 was declared surplus.
The termination order was issued on 06.06.1972.
After remand, the High Court again dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants herein on 07.04.2004.
The termination order was set aside and the respondent No.1 was paid the arrears of salary from 06.06.1972 to 09.01.1975 amounting to Rs.14,901.50 on 19.02.1979.
Against the termination order dt.06.06.1972, the respondent No.1 made a representation on 28.08.1972 and the same was allowed on that date by the Vice Chancellor.
Aggrieved by the judgment, the appellant State of U.P. filed a Writ Petition No.3920/1989 which was companytested by the respondent No.1.
The appellants filed written statement denying the claim.
In para 7B, the responsibility to fulfil the companydition is on the employee otherwise the services of the previous employment will number be companynted towards pension etc.
Vide order dt.02.07.1977, the Government terminated the service of the respondent No.1 as he did number give his option and further directed the appellants to pay the respondent No.1 for the period starting from 06.06.1972 to 09.01.1975.
The order of termination was companymunicated to the respondent No.1 by the District Magistrate who was the Chairman of the companylege at that time.
The said companylege was taken over by the Government vide Notification No.5915 Sec 9/Five 470/72.
The respondent No.1 made a claim petition to the Tribunal in the year 1981 against the order of termination companymunicated to him on 02.07.1977.
The said Notification companytained a clause 7A for obtaining option from the teacher and the staff to join government services and if the option is number received within the time, their services will stand terminated.
Thereafter, all the appointments and removal of teacher was required to be done by the Receiver, i.e., the District Magistrate.
The services of respondent No.1 was terminated vide order dt.06.06.1972.
He companypleted his probation of two years and was companyfirmed as a lecturer in science subject.
Leave was granted on 24.10.2005.
The Tribunal by order dt.30.11.1987 allowed the claim petition as prayed for.
The services of respondent No.1 was again terminated as he had number given any option to join the government service.
The appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dt.07.04.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No.3920 of 1989 whereby the High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants herein.
Dr.AR Lakshmanan, J. Heard both sides.
On 19.11.1967, respondent No.1 was subsequently appointed as lecturer in science subject by the District Magistrate.
