SUNITHA SRIPATHRAO DHOBALE W/O KALINGRAO LAKSHMANRAO JADAV Vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND SRI ANKUSH CHAWAN TEACHER, GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner herein questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 9.2.2009 passed in Application No. 1338/04 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore vide Annexure -A, in so far as the Petitioner is concerned, filed the instant writ petition. Further, Petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to issue an order of appointment, appointing the Petitioner to the post of Primary School Assistant Teacher (Marati) with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, the Respondents have issued a Notification dated 25.2.1999, calling applications for appointment to the post of Primary School Assistant Teacher (Marati). Accordingly, in pursuance of the said Notification, Petitioner, having all the requisite qualification has submitted her application. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have conducted the enquiry and completed the proceedings. They have not selected the Petitioner inspite of her having all the requisite qualifications and being more meritorious and she is entitled for appointment of Primary School Assistant Teacher (Marati). The Respondents got to explain the same by issuing an endorsement stating that, the Petitioner has done D. Ed examination from Maharashtra State and hence, she is not eligible for selection to the post applied by her in pursuance to the notification.

(3.) THE principal submission made by Sri. G.G. Chagashetti, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in not selecting the Petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in Marati language in pursuance to the notification dated 25.2.1999 issued by the 1st Respondent and he was quick to point out the matter of fact that, the Petitioner is eligible and being a meritorious student, she has completed her education in Diploma in Education in the examinations conducted by the Maharashtra Board and Diploma in Education is equivalent to T. Ch of Karnataka State. He was further quick to point out that, Annexure -A4 produced along with the application was issued by the Under Secretary to the Government I/c, Education and Y.S. Department dated 27.5.1975, wherein it is stated that, the Diploma in Education of Maharashtra Government is equivalent to the TCH Examination of the Karnataka State Government. This relevant clinching evidence available in the file, has not been considered by the Tribunal, except referring that there is a delay of more than five years in the Petitioner approaching the Tribunal for redressing her grievance and that, she has not approached the Tribunal within reasonable time. Therefore, the said reasoning given for rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner to issue appropriate direction, cannot be sustained. Therefore, he submitted that, the order impugned may be set aside and appropriate direction may be issued, allowing the application filed by the Petitioner before the Tribunal.