JUDGMENT :

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The State of Uttar Pradesh and its authorities in the Education Department are aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.01.2017 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench whereby the respondent was declared to have continued in service, thus, entitling her to all consequential benefits including salary. The State of Uttar Pradesh has been permitted to hold an enquiry to find out the officers in the Basic Education Department responsible for the situation which led to order of reinstatement with all consequential benefits, and to effect recovery of the entire amount from the officers found responsible.

4. The facts may be briefly recounted.

5. The respondent was appointed as an untrained Assistant Teacher on 28.01.1971 in Kanya Karmottar Junior High School, Gaura, Rai Bareli. She was relieved from the aforesaid post on 04.08.1973 to undergo the Basic Training Course (for short `BTC’). Completion of this course was a necessity as per Department Instructions, in order to continue on the post on which the respondent was appointed on tenure basis. The respondent did not furnish a BTC Training Certificate but appears to have produced a B.Ed Certificate instead, on the basis of which she was not permitted to resume her duties in the year 1974. No formal order terminating the services of respondent was passed but considering the fact that she was an untrained teacher and was admittedly relieved from her duties, her contractual employment came to an end.

6. The respondent appears to have made representations, which were seemingly ignored by the authorities. For the next several decades, respondent continued to make her representations, but did not approach a judicial/quasi-judicial forum for relief. She eventually filed a complaint before the State Information Commission, Uttar Pradesh, after the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005, somewhere in the year 2009, and based on her complaint, the Commission passed an order dated 05.03.2009 directing the District Basic Education Officer, Rai-Bareily to communicate the decision to the respondent on her representations.

7. The aforesaid order of the State Information Commission compelled the District Basic Education Officer to issue a communication dated 04.06.2009 (P2) which contains a brief history as to how the respondent failed to produce the required BTC Certificate and was not permitted to resume her duties. This order, in no way, amounts to fresh consideration of the representations made by the respondent or rejection thereof on merits. It simply communicated the history regarding the events of 1973-1974 when the respondent had worked for a short duration.

8. Claiming that the communication dated 04.06.2009 amounted to denial of reinstatement to her, the respondent approached the State Public Services Tribunal (in short, `the Tribunal’) on 03.06.2010 but her Claim Petition was dismissed on 11.06.2010 as being barred by limitation. The respondent filed a Review Petition but it was dismissed on 13.08.2010. Thereafter, the respondent approached the High Court which vide order dated 02.07.2012 directed the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh on merits. The Tribunal then passed an order dated 13.12.2013 directing the appellant-authorities to consider and dispose of the representations filed by the respondent. In compliance with these directions, the District Basic Education Officer considered and rejected the representation(s) moved by the respondent, on 05.04.2014. In substance, this was actually the first communication sent to the respondent which explicitly rejected her claim for reinstatement/rejoining, as the prior communication had not provided any determination on merits.

9. The respondent again approached the High Court challenging the communication dated 05.04.2014 as well as the order of the Tribunal dated 13.12.2013. The High Court vide the impugned judgment, as stated earlier, has modif