Ex??? was directed to seek instruction from Di\ risionai Superintendent of Education. However, the petitioner was not allowed certihcate from the Cotlector, Police Station termination was issued on 11-09—1984, but the petitioner was asked to join at Nawagar Higher Secondary School vide order dated 11—01—1985 (Annexure A«3).'On 2 passed declaring the period of absence f non, Learned counsel for the petitioner been passed, without giving him any opp therefore violative of principles of natural resulted in serious civil consequences, pet opportunity of hearing x Further submission of learned coun petitioner preferred a representation on 15 finally, this petition was tiled Taking into consideration that the pe 'tioner was not heard and the order of 3 “dies non"was passed as also the fact that n join and he was asked to submit and Gram Panchayat etc. An order of later on, the same was cancelled and 41-1996, the impugned order was 22-04—1980 to 11-01-1985 as “dies ubmits that the impugned order has rtunity of hearing, and the same is justice. As the order of “dies non” 'oner was entitled to due and proper el for the pet'rtioner is that though the 4499?, no decision was taken, and e petitioner’s representation was not r ‘ 11335 WW W! ‘Wrwwwf W 200 ur‘ W ‘am Wm WW %mum “ fgta‘tm mmmam a SB : Hon’b!e Shri Manindta Mohan Shrivastava, J. 26-04-2010 Shri Somkant Verma, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel .awyer for the State/respondems. Heard. The petitioner is aggrieved by an o 'der dated 21—1 1-1996 (Annexure A—4) by which, period of 22044980 t0 11<01J 985 has been treated as “dies non”. This petition was admitted on 08—03—200). On the last date of hearing, one opportunity of ming return was granted to the respondents. However, no return has been filed‘ Submission of learned counsei for the petitioner is that when the petitioner returned from ieave on 21—04~1980, he was not aiiowed to join his duty. Petitioner Wm ~«¥K$)- 37:1 mm, W135, W- 3§o9 6f mm mmmm oL/ WW MW $Wm considered, ! deem it expedient to direc representation of the petitioner and t accordance with Iaw. It would be oper representation in continuation of represe with a copy of the petition and the orde decide the representation of the peh‘tioni receipt of a copy of this ordert With the aforesaid direction, the pe ,a t me respondent No.1 to consider the ake appropriate decision thereon in for the petitioner to submit a fresh ntation eariier submitted by him along r of this Court Respondent No1 shail er within four months from the date of tition is finally disposed of. /, 5d]- T umane han ShrivaS‘ava Manlndra M Judge LA [ms sea