HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.306 of 2010 (S/S) Shri Naresh Kumar Chopra S/o Shri Sita Ram … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents Dated:- 04th May, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri V. K. Kohli, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. C. Tiwari, the learned Brief Holder for the State and Sri Sudhir Singh, the learned counsel for the Caveator. The petitioner is presently working as an Assistant Teacher and by the impugned order dated 12.03.2010 a direction has been issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand to the Director of School Education to terminate the services of the petitioner within fifteen days. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authority has no power to issue such direction since the Deputy Secretary is not the competent authority to terminate the services of the petitioner. Further, no notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. No doubt, the Deputy Secretary has no power to issue such direction, but, it transpires that pursuant to some complaints, an inquiry was made with regard to the educational qualification of the petitioner, and in that context, the Deputy Secretary had issued directions to take action. Whatever may be the circumstances, it is made clear that the Committee of Management is only the competent authority, which has the power to take action against the petitioner and such action is subject to previous approval from an authority contemplated under the Act. Consequently, the petition is disposed of accordingly with a direction that it is only the Committee of Management which can initiate proceedings for termination of the services of the petitioner. If 2 such an action is proposed to be taken pursuant to the order of the Deputy Secretary or the Director of Education, an opportunity of hearing and show cause notice would be provided to the petitioner in accordance with law. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 04.05.2010 LSR 3