A.V. GAYATHRI W/O. RAVI KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THE ADDL. SECRETARY-2 TO GOVT. (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION), DEPT. OF EDUCATION, THE DIRECTOR OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION BOARD AND ARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 4th Respondent invited applications on 27.07.1994 for the post of Accountant -cum -Clerk. The Petitioner applied and was issued with an appointment order on 20.09.1995, which was approved by the 3rd Respondent on 06.05.1996. One Smt. Kanmani, who was also appointed alongwith the Petitioner to the post of Clerk -cum -Typist and whose appointment was approved by the 3rd Respondent on 06.05.1996 without grant, submitted a representation to the 3rd Respondent, stating that, her appointment should have been approved with grant and not that of the petitione, 3rd Respondent issued show cause notice dated 25.07.2000 and passed an order dated 02.07.2001, wherein, it was observed that, there was no post of Accountant -cum -Clerk in the staff pattern of the Pre -University Colleges, but there was a provision for Head Clerk -cum -Accountant in the staff pattern, if the students strength is more than 250 and the scale of the post is equivalent to that of First Division Assistant. It was found that the strength of students in the college where the Petitioner was appointed was far below 250 and the college was not eligible for the post of Accountant -cum -Clerk and hence, the appointment and pay in the FDA's pay scale paid to the Petitioner was illegal. The appointment of Smt. Kanmani, which had been approved without aid, being found to be eligible for grant, was approved.

(2.) AGGRIEVED , the Petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st Respondent, who found that, the 3rd Respondent has committed mistake and created the problem. However, the 3rd Respondent was directed to find similar post in some other grant -in -aid institution and accommodate both i.e., Smt. Kanmani and the Petitioner, after going through the facts, determining as to who should remain in the original place and who should be accommodated in the new place. The 3rd Respondent passed an order dated 07.02.2002, to absorb the Petitioner in Vijaya Independent Pre -University College, Jayanagar IV Block, Bangalore, to the post which became vacant due to the promotion of one Sri Veerabhadraiah, Second Division Assistant. The Petitioner was directed to report for duty. The Petitioner reported for duty. The Petitioner was paid the pay of First Division Assistant. The Petitioner's pay scale instead of being fixed in the scale of S.D.A, was fixed in the scale of F.D.A i.e., Rs. 1,280 -2,375/ -. The 3rd Respondent issued a communication dated 17.07.2002 directing the DDPI that the amount paid in excess of Petitioner's entitlement be recovered from the salary of the Petitioner and credited to the Government Accounts. It now transpires that, the excess amount paid to the Petitioner is Rs. 70,493/ -. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner filed W.P. 18344/2003, which was dismissed on 18.04.2007 observing that, Petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal under Section 130 of Karnataka Education Act. The appeal filed thereafter by the Petitioner before the 2nd Respondent was dismissed on 04.02.2009. This writ petition has been filed to quash the orders at Annexures E, G and L and direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to place the Petitioner in her original cadre in terms of the order as at Annexure -F and to grant consequential reliefs.

(3.) SRI Prasanna V.R. learned advocate appearing for the Petitioner, contended that, the impugned orders are arbitrary and illegal and even otherwise, in the order passed at Annexure -F, the mistake committed by the Directorate of PUE, on account of which the problem was created and the direction issued to find similar post in some other grant -in -aid institution and accommodate the Petitioner and Smt. Kanmani, the order having been issued posting the Petitioner in place of Sri R. Veerabhadraiah, the Petitioner being a graduate and eligible to hold the post of First Division Assistant, the salary paid cannot be ordered to be recovered. Learned Counsel submitted that, the Respondents 1 to 3 have acted mechanically in the matter and the orders passed by them, impugned in the writ petition being illegal, the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of direction issued in the order at Annexure -F.