IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (S/S) 842 of 2007 Dheerendra Singh Chinwan …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ….Respondents Present : Mr. P. S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. N. S. Negi, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. P. S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. N. S. Negi, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a “Clerk” in the year 1998 in a private school. The school in question “Ganesh Vidya Mandir Punarh, which was junior school at the relevant time, is situated at District Rudraprayag. The main relief the petitioner seeks is against the Committee of Management of the school vide his prayer no. 1, which is as follows:- “a. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Clerk in Ganesh Vidya Mandir Junior High School Punar District Rudraprayag and pay salary of the petitioner regularly with consequential benefits.” 3. The case of Committee of Management against the petitioner was that since he was a habitual absentee and did not improve his conduct in spite of repeated reminders, he was not given joining after he reported for duties after his unauthorized leave. In 2000, he went on 2 leave without sanctioned leave. Thereafter after repeated reminders of the school petitioner gave his joining in the year 2001 and thereafter again went away without any sanctioned leave. Thereafter on 22.9.2005, the petitioner moved an application that he should be given joining as a Clerk. Apparently the reason for giving such an application by the petitioner was that he had come to knowledge that the said school was now to come under grant-in-aid, as the process for the same had already started. On 30.03.2006, effectively the school in fact came under the grant-in-aid. Now efforts are being made by the petitioner to give his joining as “Clerk” in the said school. 4. The Committee of Management, on the other hand, on the repeated actions of the petitioner, has declared the post vacant and they have been writing letter to the School Authorities that they should be given permission for making appointment on the said post. 5. The petitioner though sought his remedy remedies before the Education Authorities and other authorities and there are certain letters of certain authorities directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner or to take appropriate action in his case but nothing happened on the representation of the petitioner. 6. No relief as sought by the petitioner can be granted by this Court for the reason that admittedly he remained absent for considerable period without any sanctioned leave. Since there was a lot of pressure on the Committee of Management, an inquiry was conducted. The inquiry report is annexed as Annexure CA7 to the counter affidavit of respondent nos. 3 and 4 wherein it has been 3 stated that the number of days the petitioner has worked during the said period. The contention of the petitioner that no formal termination order has been passed has no force. In any case the petitioner has no remedy by filing a writ petition against the private school (as it was at the relevant time). The petitioner has re-agitated his case to give joining after remaining absent without reasonable cause for more than 5 years. Simply because now the school came under the grant-in-aid the petitioner is seeking his re-entry. He has no case either in law or in equity. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 22.11.2011 Kuldeep