By the Court.—Basic Shiksha Parishad and two others are before this Court with a request to quash the judgment and order dated 16 January 1987 passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal No. 1 at Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 497 (F) (I) of 1982 wherein claim petition has been allowed, the order passed by the authorities concerned has been set-aside and directives have been issued to treat Ram Kishore, opposite party No. 1, to be in continuous service with all consequential benefits including the salary.

2. Brief background of the case as is emanating from the pleadings, as set out by the parties, is that claimant opposite party No. 1 Ram Kishore s/o Late Sri Balai was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 15 November 1967 and had been performing and discharging his duties at primary school Asena, Vikas Khand Banikodar, Barabanki, run and managed by Zila Parishad, and claimant opposite party No. 1 continued to function in the capacity of a teacher and, thereafter, after U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 was enforced, the services of claimant opposite party No. 1 were transferred under Section 9 of the Basic Education Act under the Basic Shiksha Parishad U.P. at Allahabad w.e.f. 25 July 2012 and, accordingly, claimant opposite party No. 1 became the employee of the Basic Shiksha Parishad.

3. Claimant opposite party No. 1 submits that he has been the victim of circumstances and in spite of the fact that he has no concern with the crime in question his complicity was shown in a case under Section 302 of IPC at police station Ram Sanehi Ghat eventually wherein he has been acquitted with the passage of time after facing the trial. Claimant opposite party No. 1 submits that on account of the said complicity he was disturbed and, accordingly, he could not attend the institution in question and he had to remain in jail w.e.f. 24 January 1973 to 18 May 1973 in connection with the said crime. Claimant opposite party No. 1 submits that on account of the circumstances that were not under his control he remained absent and the Headmaster of the institution concerned informed the Deputy District Inspector of Schools about claimant opposite party No. 1 being absent without any information and a show-cause notice was issued to the claimant opposite party No. 1 on 29 January 1975 wherein claimant opposite party No. 1 was informed that his services will be terminated, if explanation is not given. Claimant opposite party No. 1 on 14 February 1975 proceeded to submit his reply and, thereafter, on 18 November 1975 District Basic Education Officer has passed an order terminating the services of claimant opposite party No. 1 and based on the same Deputy District Inspector of Schools has communicated the order dated 20 November 1975.

4. On 27 May 1976 aggrieved claimant opposite party No. 1 preferred appeal before the Secretary of Basic Shiksha Parishad U.P. at Allahabad and the same has been rejected on 11 November 1982 and thus impelling the claimant opposite party No. 1 to file claim petition before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal No. 1 at Lucknow. The said claim petition in question has been allowed and now the Basic Shiksha Parishad U.P. at Allahabad is before this Court.

5. Shri Rahul Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted with vehemence that in the present case U.P. State Public Services Tribunal has not at all appreciated the matter in its correct perspective and on totally wrong premises claim petition has been allowed, wherein facts and circumstances of the case clearly reflected and demonstrated that claimant opposite party No. 1 has deliberately and willfully absented himself from the institution and there was no other option left but to dispense with the services of claimant opposite party No. 1, as providing of opportunity in no way would have improved the case of claimant opposite party No. 1, in view of this, the order passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal be set-aside by this Cour