USUVATHUNNISA Vs. ASST EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These original petitions are filed by Arabic Teachers, whose appointment as full-time teachers in the respective Lower Primary Schools had been approved by the Assistant Educational Officer concerned since 1982-83. The facts in O.P.No. 9273 of 1985 are as follows. The petitioner was appointed as a full-time Arabic Teacher on 15-7-1982 in an additional post which was sanctioned in the staff fixation for the year

(2.) Though the petitioner has challenged Ext. P2 in its entirety, including the direction to terminate her services, the latter challenge is not pressed at the time of hearing for the reason that the petitioner has got relief from the Department itself regarding her continuance in the school. It is said that the Assistant Educational Officer subsequently passed an order approving her continuance in the school. The only question to be considered therefore is the validity of the direction to recover the excess salary for the period from 15-7-1982 to 30-6-1985.

(3.) The facts in O.P. No 9381 of 1985 are similar. The petitioner in that case was appointed as full-time Arabic Teacher on 19-7-1982 in a post sanctioned as per the order of staff fixation for the year 1982-83. The post was continued in the subsequent years as well. The appointment was approved all along from 1982-83 to 1985-86. It was while so that consequent on an audit note of the Accountant General, Trivandrum, the Assistant Educational Officer directed the Manager of the school to terminate the petitioner's services and to recover the salary drawn for the period from 15-7-1983. The reason for the direction was that the Assistant Educational Officer had wrongly sanctioned the post to which the petitioner was appointed by taking into account the strength of students in Standard V as well, instead of confining the strength to Standards I to IV. Consequent on this direction Ext. P4, the Manager issued Ext. P3 notice to the petitioner to refund the salary drawn from 15-7-1983 and also to show cause why his service should not be terminated forthwith. Subsequently the Assistant Educational Officer passed an order Annexure 2 on 24-10-1985 sanctioning the petitioner's appointment as full-time Arabic Teacher in the school from 15-7-1985, however, directing that he will be paid only at the minimum of the scale of pay admissible for such teacher without taking into account the past services rendered from 19-7-1982. The petitioner has not challenged Annexure 2 in this original petition, so that at this stage the only question for consideration is whether the direction contained in Ext. P3 and P4 for refund of the salary drawn from 15-7-1983 is legal and valid.