C KANAGAM Vs. DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER TIRUNELVELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P. No. 12148 of 2000 is filed by C. Kanagam a Tamil Pandit-cum-Head Mistress in the 3rd respondent-school, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents in any way interfering in her discharging the duties of Head Mistress of the third respondent-school direct the respondents to grant all payments, salary including arrears of salary from 1.4.2000 and other benefits and pass such further or other orders. W.P. No. 12149 of 2000 is filed by C. Rajeswari another teacher employed in the 3rd respondent-school, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents herein from in any way interfering with her discharging the duties of a teacher of the 3rd respondent-school by the petitioner direct the respondent to grant all payments, salary including arrears of salary with effect from 1.4.2000 and other benefits and issue such further or other orders of direction which this Court deems fit. Heard Mr. K. V. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions and Mr. K. Sundarraj for Mr. M. S. Jawaharlal, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and Mr. Subramanian learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2. With the consent of the counsel on either side the writ petitions are taken up and the respective counsel submitted their arguments in the main writ petitions.

(2.) AS the contentions are identical, both the writ petitions were taken up together. Excepting there is a difference as to the name, cadre or salary there is no other difference. Hence, it would be sufficient to refer to the facts in one of the writ petitions namely, W.P. No. 12148 of 2000. The petitioner is holding the post of Tamil Pandit-cum-Head Mistress in the 3rd respondent-school with effect from 20.6.1985. The petitioner claims that she had been discharging the duties with utmost devotion and had earned the reputation. But this is being disputed the contesting respondent. Further it is not necessary to go into the said aspect of the matter in this writ petition at this juncture. The petitioner alleges that with ulterior motives for accommodating one of the family members of the correspondent of the 3rd respondent-school, the 3rd respondent had been subjecting the petitioner to innumberable difficulties with respect to the administration of the school, in respect of academic matters and day-to-day administration as well. The correspondent took away the attendance register and used to get the signature to the teachers at his wish. It is alleged that the correspondent used abusive language against the petitioner in W.P. No. 12149 of 2000 using unwanted expressions besides such expression relating to the community. There was a complaint before the criminal Court under the Protection of Civil Rights Act.

(3.) IT is further pleaded that Elango is continuing as the Head Master in-charge. The contentions are devoid of merits. IT is unnecessary to pass an order of termination against the petitioner as the post held by the petitioner in the two writ petitions have been surrendered. The respondent had not followed S. 22 of the Private Schools (Regulation) Act or the Rules framed therein. IT is further pointed out that the petitioner can always move the concerned authorities to grant placement in any other aided school and respondents 1 and 2 have ample jurisdiction to entertain the application from the petitioner to secure a place of posting in other aided school. The respondent pleaded that the petitions be dismissed.