S YASODHA, PRIMARY TEACHER, ATOMIC ENERGY CENTRAL SCHOOL I (PRIMARY) Vs. CHAIRMAN, SECRETARY, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER GOVT OF INDIA ATOMIC ENERGY EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD) AN AUTONOMOUS BODY UNDER DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND N K DAS PREVIOUS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner S. Yasodha being aggrieved by her nonselection to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher(Tamil) filed the present writ petition challenging the proceedings passed by the 3rd Respondent dated 28.3.2006 in his proceedings AEES/R/SRD/2005/5710 dt.11.10.2005 to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the Respondents to promote the Petitioner as Trained Graduate Teacher (Tamil) in internal quota specified in the Special Recruitment drive as per Circular AEES/R/SRD/SCM/2005/5710 dated 11-10-2005.

(2.) (i) Mrs. A. Arulmozhi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has joined the service of the Atomic Energy Central School in Kalpakkam on 13.07.1988 as a Tamil language teacher. From the date of her joining she has been teaching in Tamil subject to the primary section consisting of standards I to V and brought excellent results in the academic performance of the students by making the students to take part in number of school activities. She was also holding the post of Secretary of Valar Tamil Mandram, Member in School Advisory Committee, Exam Committee, Prize Distribution Committee and House Master in CCA, Annual day Presentation etc. Whileso, as per the norms of the Respondent society, the primary teachers who have completed 12 years of service are entitled for senior time scale. As per the rules, when the Petitioner's name was recommended in the year 2000 for payment of senior scale of pay, she was not granted the scale of pay, while her batchmates and some of her juniors were given senior scale of pay. Similarly, the attitude of the Respondent in depriving her the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Tamil) for which she was earlier selected and included in the merit list of promotion to the post of TGT in the year 1999 can be further seen on account of denial of promotion to the Petitioner without any reason. While the Petitioner started questioning denial of promotion to her, for the simple reason that the Petitioner has questioned, the third Respondent and the Principal, Atomic Energy Central School-I, DAE Township, (PDPM) Kalpakkam 608 102 made it a point to write some kind of disciplinary remarks in her Annual Confidential Report. Finally, when she made a representation to the first Respondent, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Education Society, Mumbai by proceedings dated 11.10.2001 rejected the Petitioner's representation. Thereupon, adverse remarks were entered in her Confidential Report by the second Respondent as guided by the Principal, Atomic Energy Central School, Kalpakkam. Once again, the 4th Respondent who was the Principal of the School by showing another unreasonable approach against the Petitioner engineered to enter yet another adverse remarks in her Confidential Report for the academic year 2002-2003. Under these circumstances, the Respondent conducted a special recruitment drive for recruitment of SC/ST candidates against the backlog of vacancies reserving 33% of vacancies through internal promotion (Departmental candidates). The qualifications prescribed in the circular AEES/2005 calling for applications for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher shows that a teacher should possess

(3.) (i) Per contra Mr. V. Vijayshankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 to 4, stoutly argued against the maintainability of the Writ Petition by citing the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in V.S.R. Murthy V. Chairman, Atomic Energy Education Society, Anushaktinagar, Bombay-400 094. In that case a candidate who was employed at Hyderabad had submitted his application for selection to the post of Principal and he was called upon to attend an interview held at Bombay. After attending the interview at Bombay, he challenged his non-selection. By taking note of the fact that the Petitioner therein hailed from Hyderabad went to attend an interview held at Bombay, the learned single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the cause of auction had arisen only at Bombay which was outside the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Though the Petitioner in that case was obviously employed at Hyderabad, since he was called for the interview held at Bombay, it was held that it was outside the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and in those circumstances, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain that writ petition. On that basis, the learned Counsel for the Respondents argued that as the Petitioner in the present writ petition is working as a teacher in the 4th Respondent school in Kalpakkam, Tamil nadu and she has been called upon to appear for an interview at Bombay, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. As the entire cause of action, after taking the written examination till participating in the interview held at Bombay, have constituted no cause of action at Tamil Nadu, the learned Counsel for the Respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.