T. SAROJINI Vs. THE MANAGER AND CORRESPONDENT M.D. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MARIKUPPAM, P.R. PURAM, ERUMBI [VIA], CHENGAI MGR DISTRICT,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is an unfortunate teacher, who has been a prey of the vagaries of the school management. She was appointed for the first time in the year 1971 as a Higher Grade teacher. She became a Secondary Grade Assistant in 1973. Thereafter, she was elevated as a Headmistress of the primary school in the year 1976 and she continued to be so till 1.7.1987, on which date she was re -posted as a Secondary Grade Assistant. The status of the headmistress of the primary school and the Secondary Grade Assistant, till then, was equal. However, since she was re -posted as a Secondary Grade Assistant, she filed an appeal on 3.7.1987. Perhaps, as a result of the appeal, she was posted back on 27.10.1989 by the school management. The order dated 27.10.1989 specifically uses the word "reinstatement". It is suggested in that order, which is signed by the Correspondent, M.D.Elementary and Middle School, Ranipet Circle, that Mrs.T.Sarojini, who was "reverted" from Headmistress in 1987 and now working as Assistant in the M.D.Elementary School, Marikuppam is "reinstated" as Headmistress in the same school and the present Headmaster Mr.Manoharan, being the junior most, is reverted as Assistant for work of vacancy posted in the same school, where he is working now. This was not objected to either by Mr.Manoharan or by the Education Department and the petitioner continued to serve in the capacity of the Headmistress upto 11.12.1992. It is to be noted that from 1.6.1988, the Headmistress post became a promotional post and earned better salary. Be that as it may.

(2.) While the petitioner kept on working, she was slapped with another order dated 11.12.1992, wherein she was directed to be reverted to the post of Assistant in the same school. A glance at this order would show that this order was passed in pursuance of the orders of the District Educational Officer dated 17.9.1992 bearing No.3790/A2/92. There appears to be a reference to another order also purported to have been passed by the Assistant Educational Officer dated 28.9.1992 bearing R.C.No.305/A2/92. Perhaps, in pursuance of these two orders, the management again switched the positions of Manoharan vis -a -vis the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Director because obviously and admittedly Mr.Manoharan was junior to her and she could not have thrown out from her position as a Headmistress. That appeal, perhaps, prevailed and the Management again passed an order dated 1.10.1994 again promoting her as Headmistress. This time, the Management took adequate care to see that the order would take effect only from 1.10.1994.

(3.) The petitioner has now come before us and has asked for fixation of her salary in the scale of a Headmistress. More particularly, the petitioner's prayer is that her salary for the period between 1.7.1987 to 5.11.1989 and 15.12.1992 to 13.9.1994 should be paid to her with all consequential benefits as she has obviously retired in the meantime.