JECINTHAVIJAYAKUMAR Vs. THE DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner additionally added that there were nearly 5000 books in the fourth respondent school. The fourth respondent called for suitable candidates for appointment as a librarian in their school during June 2005 as the then existing librarian retired from their services. The petitioner made an application to the fourth respondent's School for the said librarian post, she is a Post Graduate having obtained the degree of M.A., M.L.I.S., and M.Phil in Library Science from recognized Universities, namely the University of Madras and also Annamalai University. On verifying her qualifications the fourth respondent appointed her as a Librarian by their letter dated 03.06.2005 on probation for a period of one year. All her certificates in originals starting from her school education till Post Graduation were submitted to the fourth respondent's school along with her application for the post and they are still in the custody of the fourth respondent. On satisfactory completion of the probation period, her services were extended by the fourth respondent for a period of one more academic year upto 30.04.2007 by their letter dated 30.03.2006, the said period was further extended for a period of one year by the fourth respondent vide their letter dated 23.04.2007 upto 30.04.2008 and further by letter dated 18.04.2008 upto 30.04.2009. As such her appointment as librarian was extended from time to time and is in force upto 30.04.2009. The extensions were granted after seeing her unblemished services and with a view to give credit. At the time of issuing the letter dated 18.04.2008, she requested the fourth respondent to make her services permanent since she had already completed three years of unblemished service. The fourth respondent did not adhere to her request and expressed that the librarian post is not an aided post though the school is receiving grant in aid from the Government. In spite of her requests regarding the grant received by them for their staff, the fourth respondent refused to divulge any information. Her brother working as a Reader in the Department of Statistics, Loyola College, Chennai and she made a representation to the Public Information Officer / District Educational Officer by letter dated 04.07.2008 seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 specifically with regard to the post of librarian in the fourth respondent's school. The second respondent belatedly sent a reply collecting information from the third respondent. The third respondent had collected the entire information supplied by them on instructions from the fourth respondent's school. A perusal of the said information annexure would disclose as to how the information furnished by them are irrelevant and inconsistent, since the information furnished by the respondents 2 to 4 are not satisfactory, a further representation was made to the State Information Commissioner by letter dated 01.09.2008. This information has been sought on their behalf but sought as a matter of general information.

(3.) THE petitioner additionally submitted that while the matter should thus, with malafide intention of terminating her services on one pretext or the other, the fourth respondent sent a letter of termination dated 06.11.2008, which was received by her on 11.11.2008, pursuant to an alleged resolution of the government body of the school. The main charge in the said letter of termination is that on 05.11.2008, after signing the attendance register, she had abandoned the work and left the school without information to the school authorities and without obtaining any permission to go out. The said letter further states that her services were not satisfactory and that she was told to improve at the time of granting extension, which statement is totally false. Though her appointment is for the post of librarian, she had also been teaching moral science subject and acted as an Invigilator for big tests conducted by the students of X and XII Standards. The letter further directs her to handover the charge to the Correspondent immediately. None of the allegations levelled against her in the said letter of termination dated 06.11.2008 is true. As already submitted to the fourth respondent her certificates are either been misplaced or lost with a view to eliminate her from the school by finding one reason or the other. On 05.11.2008, after signing the attendance register, the Headmaster, in charge of the fourth respondent's school physically prevented her from taking the keys of the library from where they are kept usually. She was prevented from discharging her duties and she was asked to get out of the school with her children, who are studying in Standard II and V.