SIVANARUL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is for certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order, dated 30th August, 1983, passed by the third respondent, to quash the same and direct the third respondent to continue the petitioner in service.

(2.) THE petitioner is employed as a whole time teacher from the year 1980 under the third respondent. She completed her Bachelor degree in Tamil in April 1980 and obtained her Master's degree in Tamil in 1983. She took her B. Ed. examination and was awaiting for the results, at the time of filing of the writ petition. It is only on the footing that she is a whole time teacher, a certificate was issued to her to in the B. Ed. course for the academic year 1982-83. Even though the petitioner was a full time teacher, she was made to sign a letter declaring her willingness to continue her profession as a teacher in the said school at the commencement of every academic year.

(3.) IN her affidavit the petitioner would stated that during her employment as a teacher instructing for standard IV and VIII from the year 1980, the authorities of the School wanted her to embrace Christianity, should she desire to continue as a teacher. The petitioner refused to do so. Therefore, a resignation letter was demanded of her and she was called upon to leave the School. She did not comply with this demand. She got married on 21st August, 1983. Thereupon, on 29th November, 1983, a letter, dated 30th August, 1983, was served on the petitioner terminating her services. It is the validity of this letter that is questioned. Aggrieved by the same she filed O. S. 633 of 1983, in the court of the District Munsif of Chidambaram seeking an injunction restraining the 3rd respondent from terminating her services. The petitioner was asked to report for duty every day, but she was not permitted to take any class. On 12th March, 1984 the learned District Munsif of Chaidambaram dismissed I. A. 2200 of 1983, in O. S. No. 635 of 1983, stating that he had no jurisdiction no entertain the suit.