SAMEENA A Vs. MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working as 'Urdu teacher' w.e.f. 07.06.2006 in the first respondent's school. According to the petitioner, the appointment given to her was against a Full-time post by diverting Group-C subjects and as such she is entitled for the benefits of the post of Full time teacher from the date of her appointment. It is stated that there is no Specialist Teacher and that there are enough periods for the petitioner, to be treated as Full-time teacher. As per Ext.P1, the claim however came to be rejected by the third respondent, against which statutory revision petition was preferred by the Manager before the 4th respondent/Government. This was considered and Ext.P6 order dated 15.09.2011 came to be passed, whereby the claim was turned down. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned proceedings.

(2.) THE second respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing the claim and also stating that the teacher completed five years' of service on 07.06.2011 and by virtue of her eligibility to have the benefits of Full-time teacher, the same was given to her w.e.f. 07.06.2011, as per G.O.(Ms) 62/73 dated 02.06.1973. It is also contended that in view of the stipulation made by the Government as per G.O.(Ms)No.220/2010/Gen.Edn dated 04.11.2010, if more periods are diverted from Group 'C' subjects, it will adversely affect the overall development of the students as there will be a reduced number of periods for Group 'C' subjects like Art Education, Health and PET and Work Education etc.

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the first respondent Manager, who preferred the revision petition before the Government, leading to Ext.P6 and the learned Government Pleader as well.