Dr. Seema Kundra Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase..........college, varanasi, as she was only attached to that college and hence, she was purely on deputation there. it is settled law that a deputationist has no right to hold the post to which he or she is sent on deputation, vide jt 2000 (6) 574, jt 1999 (7) sc 44, etc.5. it appears that the state overnment by means of order dated 2.10.2002 directed the director, ayurvedic and unani services. u. p, to detach all the medical officers and place them on their original place of posting vide annexure-10 to the writ petition. the petitioner has only a lien on her original place of posting and not on the place where she was attached.6. thus, we find no illegality in the impugned order. the petition is dismissed.

Judgment:

ORDER

M. Katju, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents not to relieve the petitioner from her present place of posting at State Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Atarra.

3. It appears that petitioner was appointed by order dated 16.6.1988 as Medical Officer, at Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Talbeahat, Lalitpur. In the year 1990, the petitioner was attached with State Ayurvedic College, Varanasi and was deputed for teaching job vide Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the petition that since then the petitioner is doing teaching job in the college.

4. In our opinion, the petitioner has no lien or right to hold the post in the State Ayurvedic College, Varanasi, as she was only attached to that college and hence, she was purely on deputation there. It is settled law that a deputationist has no right to hold the post to which he or she is sent on deputation, vide JT 2000 (6) 574, JT 1999 (7) SC 44, etc.

5. It appears that the State overnment by means of order dated 2.10.2002 directed the Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services. U. P, to detach all the Medical Officers and place them on their original place of posting vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The petitioner has only a lien on her original place of posting and not on the place where she was attached.

6. Thus, we find no illegality in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed.