R RETNA BAI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. In that writ petition the appellant had challenged the order dated 18.8.1993 which was passed by the fourth respondent hereinafter called the Management relieving her from the post of Tamil Teacher in their school. THE facts some times are more fanciful than the fiction. This case is a classic example of that. THE facts are as follows: THE petitioner is M.A. in Tamil and is also having qualification of Bachelor of Education. THE fourth respondent was upgraded from middle school to High School on the basis of the proceedings dated 29.8.1984 but with effect from 1.10.1984. THErefore, one post of Tamil Pandit was sanctioned for the school. On 20.1.1985 the petitioner was appointed as Tamil Pandit in the fourth respondent school and continued to work without any interruption till the impugned order dt. 18.8.1993 was passed. It must be noted here that the post of Headmistress had fallen vacant in the fourth respondent school during the year 1985 itself and one Mrs. M. Kanakabai, who was earlier working in the post of Tamil Pandit was promoted as Headmistress with effect from 13.1.1986. It is an admitted position that approval was not granted both for Kanakabai to the post of Headmistress and the petitioner's post as Tamil Pandit. Perhaps, the petitioners post became vacant because of the promotion granted to the said Kanakabai to the post of Headmistress. Thus there was a necessary link between these two posts one of Kanakabai as Headmistress and the petitioner Retna Bai as a Tamil Pandit. It seems that the Management all the while prayed to the department for approval of both the posts. Since Kanakabai did not have five years experience, approval was not being accorded. Resultantly even the petitioner's post did not get the approval. It is an admitted case of the parties that the said approval came to be given only on 19.1.1990, but with the condition that Kanakabai will draw only the Tamil Pundit's pay between 1985 and 1991 and not that of the Headmistress and the petitioner would stand approved in the post of Tamil Pandit from 1985 since the date when she was appointed as Tamil Pandit. THErefore it is an accepted position that on 19.1.1990 Kanakabai stood approved as Headmistress with aforementioned Management while the petitioner stood approved in the post of Tamil Pandit with effect from 1985.

(2.) HOWEVER, there is a small snag. Even of this approval was granted 19.1.1990, in fact, Kanakabai was terminated by the school on 8.4.1989 itself in pursuance of a departmental enquiry. There were number of charges leveled against her some of them were in the nature of criminal offence. It was alleged that she had given false certificates and in the process had misappropriated some money also as the case may be, and had earned some money illegality perhaps at the cost of the school. It is hard to tell, and it has not been explained to us by the Government Pleader as to how the approval came to be granted to Kanakabai in the post of Headmistress when even before that date she already stood terminated. Be that as it may, even today the government is not resiling from the position that at least from 19.1.1990 Kanakabai was approved as Headmistress and resultantly, the petitioner was also approved in the post of Tamil Pandit with effect from 1985. Be that as it may, it seems that Kanakabai challenged by way of an appeal the order of termination. That appeal seems to have been allowed and there seems to have been a direction for reinstatement of Kanakabai in the post of Headmistress. During the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant produced a copy of the letter No.97471/02/92-3 Edn. dt 22.6.1993. This order seems to have been passed by one V. Sankarasubbaiyan, I.A.S..,Secretary to Government, Education Department and it seems to have been addressed to the Director of School Education, Madras-6. It makes a reference to G.O.Ms.No.1020 dated 2.11.1992, wherein, the Government had directed the Director of School Education to instruct the Management to reinstate Tmt. Kanakabai as Headmistress. It is, therefore, clear that by order dated 2.11.1992 Kanakabai was directed to be reinstated in the post of Headmistress, but the Management acted though and did not allow her to join duty as Headmistress. It seems that Kanakabai, therefore, sent a petition to the Government in the nature of a representation pointing these facts to the Government and prayed that she should at least be reinstated with backwages as Headmistress or to give her posting in another school in similar rank by transferring the post from the management. This communication dated 22.6.1993 mentions that the Government after "careful" examination have decided to transfer one post of Tamil Pandit B.T. Assistant from the respondent school to another school along with Tmt. M. Kanakabai. An immediate action was directed to be taken to transfer the point of Tamil Pandit B.T. Assistant from the High School to some other school along with Tmt. M. Kanagabai. It seems, as a result of this communication dated 22.6.1993, the impugned order came to be passed and the school took a view that since Kanakabai was transferred with the post of Tamil Pandit, the only person whose head could role was the petitioner, as she was appointed as the Tamil Pandit. Consequently the school took the view that since the post of Tamil Pandit ceased to exist in the respondent school, which post was take away by Kanakabai along with her, thanks to the Government orders which were so " thoughtfully" passed the petitioner must lose her job as Tamil Pandit though the petitioner admittedly worked from 1985 to 1993 and also admittedly had nothing to do with the saga of termination and reinstatement of Kanakabai and was a total foreigner to the controversy. The petitioner, therefore, came out with the petition before the learned single Judge.

(3.) THE Management is also represented by counsel and the counsel says that as a matter of fact, the Management had shown its bona fides by writing to the Government consistently from 1993 that be post of Tamil Pandit was bound to be created in the school and the petitioner was liable to be reinstated in that post. It was candidly admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Management that the decision by which Kanakabai was directed to be reinstated in the post of Headmistress was suffered by the Management and was not challenged. Instead the Management condescended to the transfer of Kanakabai to some other school along with the post of Tamil Pandit.