thereunder, was not followed by the said school. It was also pointed out that the attendance sheets did not show signatures of the petitioner for the relevant period, and that therefore, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 could not be held liable for payment of salary for the said period. It was also pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that even though the respondent No.6 - school was supposed to absorb the petitioner upon being declared surplus, the said school failed to abide by the said requirement, despite repeated directions given to the said respondent No. 6-school. On this basis, it was contended that even for the period between 09.03.2017 to 26.10.2017, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 could not be held liable to pay arrears to the petitioner. It was contended that the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 schools had acted illegally and in defiance of law and directions specifically given to them and in such a situation, the respondent-authorities could not be held liable to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner.
