NIRMALA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the time of final hearing of the Original Petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that only relief No. 6 in this Original Petition remains to be considered by this Court. To consider the remaining relief, it is necessary to refer to certain facts relating to the complaint of the Petitioner.

(2.) THE Petitioner had an approved period of service in the school under the management of the 5th Respondent as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in U.P. section from 1st February 1973 to 23rd April 1973 and from 29th January 1985 to 9th March 1985. She had also Anr. term as H.S.A. (Hindi) during the period from 17th February 1983 to 19th April 1983. On the retirement of a Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in the U.P. section on 31st March 1990, a vacancy arose in the U.P. section with effect from 1st June 1990 in the post of Lower Grade Hindi Teacher. Anticipating the above vacancy, Petitioner had made a representation dated 22nd September 1989 which was followed by Ext. P -3 dated 5th May 1990 and Ext. P -4 dated 21st May 1990 to the 5th Respondent. Petitioner had also made a representation Ext. P -5 dated 19th May 1990 to the first Respondent Deputy Director of Education and Ext. P -6 representation dated 26th February 1990 to the 2nd Respondent -D.E.O. Ext. P -6 representation was returned to the Petitioner directing her to file the same before the A.E.O. The Petitioner therefore filed Ext. P -7 representation dated 3rd June 1990 to the third Respondent A.E.O. This was followed by representations Ext. P -8 dated 27th December 1990 and Ext P -9 dated 14th January 1991 to Respondents 1 and 3. The Petitioner was then favoured with a reply, Ext. P -10 dated 4th February 1991 from the third Respondent informing her that necessary action was being taken in this regard even before receipt of her representation Ext. P -9. In spite of the above reply, when no action was taken by the authorities, the Petitioner filed this Original Petition on 6th March 1991.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the case was again heard and this Court, by Order dated 1st August 1991, directed the Manager to appoint the Petitioner in the vacancy which arose on 31st March 1990 in the post of Lower Grade Hindi Teacher within a period of ten days. Instead of complying with the above order, the Manager filed a counter -affidavit stating that he does not propose to make any appointment to the above vacancy. This Court by order dated 30th August 1991, gave one more opportunity to the Manager to implement the order within one week. He was directed to report to this Court on 9th September 1991 the fact of having implemented the order. It was further directed that if no such order was passed by the Manager appointing the Petitioner the Manager was to be present personally in the Court and show cause why contempt proceedings should not be taken against him for not implementing the orders of this Court.