SANTHAKUMARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is born with a double handicap - a woman and a member of a scheduled caste. She complains that her valiant efforts to climb higher ladders of Civil Service were throttled as a result of a system found unsatisfactory and arbitrary by the Supreme Court more than a decade and half back.

(2.) Pursuant to a recruitment under the Special Recruitment Programme through the Public Service Commission, the petitioner was appointed as a Headmistress on 1-6-1972. She acquired full eligibility for being promoted to the cadre of District Educational Officer and was shown as senior to respondents 4 to 13 in the seniority list of Gazetted Officers in the teaching staff of the Education Department. When Departmental Promotion Committee met on 27-3-1982 and prepared a select list of officers fit for promotion to the cadre of District Educational Officers, petitioner's name was not included therein while her juniors, respondents 4 to 13, found place in the list. She made a representation on 15-4-1982 before the 3rd respondent objecting to her supersession. She was not favoured with a reply. While so, the Departmental Promotion Committee again met on 4-6-1982 and another list was drawn up in which her name was included as Sl. No.l.

(3.) The select lists (Exts.P1 and P2) mentioned above would not show that they were for any particular year. Pursuant to the inclusion of petitioner's name in Ext. P2 list, she was promoted as District Educational Officer under Order dt. 15-7-1982. Since the petitioner did not receive a reply to her objection against Ext. P1 list, she made a further representation before the Government on 14-3-1987. Not only that she was denied a reply, but the 4th respondent was granted further promotion to the cadre of Dy. Director, though provisionally, by order dt.5-5-1983. This provoked a further representation from petitioner dt.7-10-1983 which also shared the same fate as the earlier representations. Later, by order dt. 18-6-1984, promotion was given to the petitioner as Dy. Director of Education. Aggrieved by the total disregard of the authorities towards her complaint, she filed O.P.No. 10629/84 before this Court. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it was contended that the petitioner was superseded in Ext. P1 list as there were adverse entries in her confidential report for the period from 1-1-1979 to 20-5-1981. It was also stated therein that the Departmental Promotion Committee, at its meeting held on 11-1-1983, affirmed its earlier decision. According to the petitioner, she was never informed of such a decision taken on 11-1-1983.