Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56857 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22136 of 2014 Petitioner :- Azra Khatoon Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Imran Ali,Santosh Kumar,Santosh Kumar Mishra,Sitaram Patel Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Dwivedi Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Sitaram Patel, learned counsel for petitioner at length and Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondents. 2. Facts of present case are absolutely against the case of petitioner. On the allegations of long absence, on basis of proposal, services of petitioner on post of Assistant Teacher, Tahtaniya was terminated vide order dated 26.12.1998. 3. Aforesaid order and resolution was challenged at behest of petitioner in Writ A No. 52771/1998. Said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.03.2013 that since principles of natural justice were violated, therefore, matter was remitted back to Inspector, Arabi Farsi Madarsa, Lucknow to pass appropriate order after hearing petitioner and Committee of Management. 4. In aforesaid circumstances, Inspector, Arabi Farsi Madarsa, Lucknow heard rival parties and by impugned order dated 09.01.2014 rejected the claim of petitioner and relevant part of impugned order is quoted below :- "ननररय ययचचनच शचमतच अजरय खयततन एवव पबनधक मदरसय कक लललखत बययनन एवव पतयवलच पर उपलबध पपतन/ अनभलकखन कय अननशचलन करनक पर यह सपष हहआ नक शचमतच अजरय खयततन कक ननयननक सहययक अधययपक तहतयननयय कक पद पर मदरसय उपररक मम नदनयवक 16.08.1995 कर हहई थच। शचमतच अजरय खयततन कक घर सक मदरसक कक दतरच अतयलधक हरनक कक कयरर वह ननयनमत रप सक मदरसय नहह पहहहच पयतच थच। नबनय सतचनय कक लगयतयर मदरसक सक नदनयवक 17.11.1997 सक अननपससथत रहनक कक कयरर मदरसय पबनधतवत दयरय उनहक अपनच बबठक नदनयवक 25.01.1998 मम सवरसममत सक उनकर नवलधक पनकयय अपनयतक हहए छयतनहत एवव मदरसय नहत मम उनहम सकवय सक बखयरसत कर नदयय गयय। तथय बखयरसतगच आदकश कक पनत मदरसय मयनयतय एवव सकवय ननयमयवलच 1987, कक ननयम 34 कक अऩतगरत पररषद कयययरलय कर उपलबध करयई गयच। शचमतच अजरय खयततन सहययक अधययपक तहतयननयय कक ररक पद पर मदरसय पबनधतवत दयरय शचमतच जकबय खयनम कक ननयननक कर पतयवलच लजलय अलपसवखयक कलययर अलधकयरच इलयहयबयद कक मयधयम सक नदनयवक 23.01.2002 कर अननमरदन हकतन उपलबध करयई गयच। लजस पर रलजसटटयर / ननरचकक अरबच फयरसच मदरसय लखनऊ दयरय अपनक पतयवक सवखयय - 350-352 नदनयवक- 28 फरवरच 2002 दयरय शचमतच जकबय खयनम कक ननयननक कर सहमनत वयक कक गयच। शचमतच अजरय खयततन कय पतययवकदन बलहचन हरनक कक कयरर ननरसत नकयय जयतय हब। तथय मय० उचच नययययलय दयरय पयररत आदकश नदनयवक 13.03.2013 कक अननपयलन मम पकरर एतददयरय ननसतयररत नकयय जयतय हब।" 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has attended classes, however, she was not allowed to put her signature on attendance sheet as well as submission raised on her behalf were not considered by concerned respondent. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that a specific reason was assigned in impugned order that petitioner remained absent from 17.11.1997 to 25.01.1998, therefore, on basis of resolution, her services were terminated and that petitioner has not denied said factual findings in her entire writ petition as well as that when this writ petition was filed in the year 2014, petitioner was aged about 54 years, therefore, she has now crossed age of superannuation. 7. I have considered above submissions. 8. Services of petitioner was terminated on a ground that she remained absent from 17.11.1997 to 25.01.1998 as well as earlier also, she did not attend Madarsa regularly since her residence was far away from Madarsa. 9. I have carefully perused the contents of writ petition and are absolutely silent in regard to findings that she remained absent from 17.11.1997 to 25.01.1998. Only averment made in paragraph 16 of writ petition is in regard to subsequent representation dated 14.02.1998 and 25.07.1998 i.e. after resolution was adopted and order of termination was passed. 10. Therefore, in absence of relevant averment, only on basis of oral submission, findings cannot be considered to be perverse or contrary to record. 11. In earlier round of litigation, a writ petition filed by petitioner was disposed of since principles of natural justice were not followed and thereafter impugned order was passed after hearing rival parties i.e. petitioner and Committee of Management, therefore, principles of natural justice were followed and as referred above, factual reasons given in impugned order are not being contradicted in writ petition as well as no contrary document was placed on record, therefore, Court cannot grant any relief to petitioner. 12. Accordingly, there is no reason to interfere with impugned order, hence, writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Sinha_N. Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad