N.K. SARASWATHI Vs. CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal is directed against the order of Ramapra -sada Rao J. D/ - 3 -4 -1972 in W. P. No. 85 of 1972. The petitioner therein is the appellant herein. The facts are not in controversy. The appellant herein and the third respondent belong to the District Board Educational Service as Assistants in schools. According to the practice followed with reference to the rules that have been framed by the Government, pursuant to Sections 70 and 199 (2) (a) of the Madras District Boards Act, 1920, for each year, on the basis of the vacancies that are likely to arise in the post of Headmistresses, a panel would be constituted by a panel committee consisting of the President of the District Board and the Inspectress of schools. After the abolition of the District Board in the place of the President, it was the Chief Educational Officer, who was functioning and therefore the panel Committee consisted of the Chief Educational Officer and the Inspectress of schools. Admittedly the petitioner (appellant herein) entered the service of the District Board on 4 -8 -1962, while the third respondent entered the service of the District Board on 1 -7 -1964. For the year 1965 -66. four vacancies of Headmistresses arose and the panel committee duly selected one Tiru -mathi Sitalakshmi and three others. For the year 1966 -67, there was no selection by the panel Committee. For the year 1967 -68, the panel Committee, though it was obliged to select two, selected only one. For the year 1968 -69 there was no selection and for the year 1969 -70, two persons one Thirumathi Vedavalli and the appellant herein were selected to constitute the panel by the panel committee on 17 -3 -1970. Against the proceedings of the panel Committee, the third respondent herein preferred an appeal to the Director of School Education. Madras, contending that she ought to have been included in the penal for the year 1965 -66 itself and notwithstanding this even for the year 1969 -70, her name was not included in the penal. The Director of School Education, by his order dated 21 -10 -1971, held that the third respondent should have been included in the panel for the year 1965 -66 itself and that justice has been denied to her by not including her name even for the year 1969 -70. Consequently he gave a direction to the Chief Educational Officer to revise the panel and include the name of the third respondent. Thirumathi Lilly Isaiah, in the panel for 1969 -70 and give her rank No. 1. He also directed the Chief Educational Officer to give a posting to the third respondent immediately and intimate the same to him. Pursuant to this order of the. Director of School Education, the panel committee on 29 -10 -1971. revised the original panel and included the name of the third respondent herein and assigned her the first rank. The result of that was that the third respondent was appointed as a Headmistress and the appellant herein who was by that time appointed as Headmistress was reverted as an assistant. Aggrieved by these proceedings, the appellant herein filed W. P. No. 82 of 1972 on the file of this court and prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 21 -10 -1971 of the Director of School Edu -cation and the consequent proceedings of the panel committee, represented by the Chief Educational Officer, Coimba -tore. dated 29 -10 -1971. This writ petition came up for hearing before Rama -prasada Rao. J. Before the learned Judge, on behalf of the appellant two arguments were principally advanced in support of the writ petition. The first was that the Director of school Education violated the principles of natural justice, when he passed the order dated 21 -10 -1971, without giving any opportunity whatever to the appellant herein, who was really aggrieved by his order as well as the consequential order dated 29 -10 -1971 of the panel Committee. The second argument was that the rules did not provide for any appeal to the Director of School Education against the orders of the panel committee and consequently the Director of school Education had no jurisdiction whatever to interfere with the panel constituted by the panel committee. The learned Judge accepted the first argument advanced on behalf of the appellant and held that the order of the Di -recor of School Education dated 21 -10 -1971 was vitiated inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. As far as the second argument was concerned, the learned Judge negatived the same. In the view of the learned Judge, the fact that the rules did not provide for any appeal did not take away the power or authority of the administrative Head of the department to consider the correctness of the orders, passed by the panel committee and consequently the Director of School Education was entitled to entertain the appeal preferred by the third respondent herein and interfere with the panel prepared by the panel committee on the representation of the third respondent. Even though the learned Judge rejected the contention of the appellant on the second point, in view of his conclusion on the first point, he allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders. The learned Judge however, pointed out towards the end of his judgment:

(2.) AFTER the writ petition was allowed by this court, the Committee passed a fresh order on 24 -7 -1972. That order reads as follows -

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. K. K, Venugopal sought to attempt a fresh argument. According to him, the District Boards came to an end on 2 -10 -1961 and the District Board Schools were taken over and managed by the Collector till 1963 and thereafter they became regular Government schools and consequently the rules referred to above, namely, the rules framed under the Madras District Boards Act 1920, have no application and therefore we must proceed on the basis that there are no rules at all governing the matter in question. We are unable to accept this argument for the simple reason that the entire proceedings before the learned Judge as well as the case of the parties even in W. P. 2066 of 1972, have been rested only on the rules framed by the Government under the statutory provisions of the Madras District Boards Act 1920, referred to already. Consequently, we are unable to entertain this argument for the first time and we hold that the learned Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the Director of School Education in the exercise of general powers of superintendence could entertain an appeal at the instance of the third respondent against the order of the panel Committee constituting the panel for the year 1969 -70.