JECINTHA VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25.04.2012 passed in Review Application No.19 of 2012, which was filed to review the order dated 10.02.2009 passed in W.P.No.30253 of 2008.

(2.) THE aforesaid writ petition viz., W.P.No.30253 of 2008 was filed by the review petitioner herein seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 4th respondent-School, relating to their letter dated 17.12.2008, terminating the services of the petitioner and quash the same. The writ petition was disposed of on 10.02.2009 on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Being not satisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A.No.509 of 2009, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 22.04.2009 with liberty to the petitioner to file a review application.

(3.) SINCE , the petitioner levelled allegations against her previous counsel, who represented her in the writ petition viz., Mr.P.Godson Swaminathan, he was asked to file a counter in the review application. Accordingly, he filed his counter affidavit and also appeared in person before the Court. He inter alia stated that the writ petition came up for hearing on several dates, i.e., on 19.01.2009, 21.01.2009, 22.01.2009, 29.01.2009 and 03.02.2009 and on all those days the interim order of stay granted earlier in favour of the petitioner was extended at his request, that the information relating to the happenings in the Court was also conveyed to the petitioner through phone, that almost on all those hearing dates the petitioner and her husband visited his office in the evening hours, and he apprised them of the developments in the case, and that the petitioner and her husband met him on 19.01.2009 and 21.01.2009 and instructed him that in case the Court is not inclined to give the relief sought for in the writ petition, he should make a request to the Court to direct the 4th respondent to return her certificates, which were withheld by the 4th respondent-school and also make a request to the Court to direct the 4th respondent to pay her arrears of salary. He further stated that he explained the petitioner that such a request will adversely affect her right to prefer an appeal against the order. But, even then she persisted with her demand for getting back her certificates and balance salary due to her. Therefore, at the hearing of the case on 21.01.2009, after some arguments, he made the request as instructed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the writ petition came up for hearing on 29.01.2009. On that day, as the 4th respondent had not made arrangements for the return of the certificates, the matter was adjourned to 02.02.2009. Again the writ petition was listed on 03.02.2009. On that occasion also at the instance of the 4th respondent it came to be adjourned to 10.02.2009. According to him, all these adjournments were informed to the petitioner, and finally on 10.02.2009 the order impugned in the review application was passed. He informed about the final order passed in the writ petition, and requested the petitioner to collect the certificates and the two cheques dated 17.12.2008 and 29.01.2009, which were given by the 4th respondent towards her salary dues. According to him, he reminded several times, but the petitioner did not turn up. Hence, he wrote a letter on 06.07.2009 asking her to collect the certificates and the cheques. It is stated that he never advised her to close the case and the entire allegations made against him are false.