R SUBASHINI Vs. DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appellant, aggrieved against the order dated 04.04.2012, has come forward with this Writ Appeal. The appellant would contend that she was appointed as Assistant Teacher viz., Secondary Grade Teacher on 07.03.1985. At the time of appointment, as she stood in the first rank she was appointed in the first vacancy in Turn No.17 (Backward Class) and the fourth respondent was appointed in Turn No.19(Backward Class). Both of them were appointed on the same day. According to her, her seniority and the fourth respondent's seniority were fixed as Turn Nos.17 and 19. Considering that she was in the senior most position, she was nominated as a Member in the School Committee in the year 2006. Similarly, Turn No.18, viz., P.Sarojinidevi was also nominated as a Member of School Committee. The Headmistress post became vacant on 01.05.20011 and the appellant was bona fidely expecting her promotion. But, to her shock and surprise, she was asked to put her signature in the Minutes of the School Committee meeting alleged to have been held on 25.09.2011. According to her, there was no meeting conducted on 25.09.2011 and she refused to put her signature. Therefore, the Minutes of the School Committee meeting stating that the fourth respondent was to be appointed as the Headmistress is not correct. As the appellant is the senior most person and this was done only by the third respondent just to promote the fourth respondent.

(2.) IN view of the attitude of the third respondent, the appellant submitted a grievance petition to the third respondent on 27.09.2011 and the copy of the same was sent to the first and second respondents. In the meanwhile, the fourth respondent has joined duty as Headmistress on 26.09.2011 itself. As no reply was given to the grievance petition dated 27.09.2011, the appellant submitted an appeal to the first respondent and also sent a reminder to the first respondent on 20.01.2012. Pursuant to this, the third respondent has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and issued a memo dated 09.02.2012 alleging that the appellant had made an appeal dated 20.01.2012 directly to the higher officials and not routed through the third respondent. According to the appellant, sending of grievance petition cannot be construed as misconduct or violation of rules.

(3.) IN the said letter, she has not stated anything about sending and forwarding through the proper authority concerned. Now the question falling for consideration is whether the petitioner can file a writ petition to quash the charge memo itself at the threshold. In this connection, we are governed by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2007 SC 906, (Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana), wherein the Supreme Court has categorically held that a mere charge sheet or show cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. Here, it is not the case of the appellant that the authority who issued the charge memo has no jurisdiction. Her only grievance is that her right has been infringed by the action and that too, it is a personal action. All these things could be raised at the time of enquiry.