V. MANIMEKALAI Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THANJAVUR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged a charge memo issued by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 14.06.2011.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that she is working as Secondary Grade Teacher in the second respondent-school, which is a private school, receiving grant in aid from the Government. The petitioner is working in the second respondent-school from 04.06.1997. She has passed B.A.,(History), B.Ed., M.A.,(History), B.Lit(Tamil) and M.A.,(Tamil) and as such she is qualified for being considered for appointment to the post of Tamil Pandit as well as P.G. Assistant (Tamil) in the second respondent-school. On 01.09.2008, a vacancy arose in the post of Tamil Pandit in the second respondent-school, due to promotion of other teacher. The petitioner made a representation requesting the second respondent to consider her to the post of Tamil Pandit. However, instead of appointing the petitioner to the post of Tamil Pandit, the second respondent-school appointed the petitioner only as Graduate Assistant (History). The petitioner through letter dated 04.08.2010 relinquished her right for appointment to the post of Graduate Assistant (History) and requested the 2nd respondent to consider her for appointment to the post of Tamil Pandit by promotion. It is stated by the petitioner that the second respondent purposely has not considered her for appointment to the post of Tamil Pandit. On the other hand, one Tamil Selvi was appointed as Tamil Pandit on 01.06.2011 in total violation of Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent on 06.06.2007 to intervene in the matter and to issue suitable direction to the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioner to the post of Tamil Pandit. The petitioner further states that the first respondent called for remarks from the second respondent based on the petitioner's representation. However, the impugned charge memo was issued by the second respondent on 14.06.2011, framing as many as four charges. All the charges relates to the petitioner's conduct in preferring representation to the first respondent.

(3.) IT is stated by the second respondent that the petitioner's appointment at the second respondent-school as Secondary Grade Teacher was made on 04.07.1997 and when she is the senior most qualified person with reference to the history subject, she was considered for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant (History), in pursuant to a resolution passed by the school committee on 25.05.2010. Consequently, an order of appointment was made, appointing the petitioner as B.T. Assistant (History) on 10.06.2010. However, the petitioner relinquished her promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant, due to family circumstances, through her letter dated 09.06.2010. The District Educational Officer, Kumbakonam has also accorded the approval of such relinquishment through his proceedings dated 17.09.2010. Therefore, another eligible teacher, namely, one Baskaran was given promotion as B.T. Assistant (History). Further, a vacancy arose to the post of Tamil Pandit during September 2008 due to promotion of the incumbent as P.G. Assistant. There was a counter claim by another teacher by name one R.Kalichandran to the said post. The school management had taken steps to fill up the vacancy to the post of Tamil Pandit with qualified person. Though the petitioner also claimed to the said post, she was not considered as she had already relinquished her promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the District Educational Officer, Kumbakonam on 06.06.2011 complaining that she was denied promotion to the post of Tamil Pandit. The said representation was made by the petitioner directly to the District Educational Officer, Kumbakonam, without sending the same through the proper channel which is against code of conduct. Further the petitioner did not disclose in the said representation with regard to her relinquishment of promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant. Further, the District Educational Officer, Kumbakonam through his proceedings, dated 24.06.2011, directed the petitioner to forward the appeal only through proper channel. The District Educational Officer, Kumbakonam, has also found that the petitioner has suppressed various material facts. Accordingly, the conduct of the petitioner is the clear case of in-subordination and therefore, it was decided to initiate the disciplinary action against the petitioner by issuing a charge memo, impugned in this writ petition. It is further stated by the second respondent that the petitioner has already given her explanation on 20.06.2011 and as the same did not satisfy the charges, it was decided to hold an enquiry and accordingly an enquiry was conducted and a report was also submitted on 01.08.2011 to the Management Committee. In pursuant to the report received from the Enquiry Committee, further notice was sent to the petitioner on 11.08.2011 calling upon her to offer further explanation. Though the petitioner sought for time to give her explanation on two occasions, instead of submitting her explanation, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.