S B ANDAL Vs. CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for calling for the records in Ka. Kaa. A. No. 21601/96 dated 10. 1. 97, 18. 2. 1997 and 14. 3. 1997 from the file of the third respondent and proceedings in R. O. C. No. 5891/97/b4 dated 23. 12. 1997 from the file of the first respondent directing stoppage of payment of salary of the petitioner and to quash the same, and for a further direction restraining the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner had applied for employment in the fourth respondent institution and was appointed as Junior Assistant on 22. 1. 1996. Before appointing the petitioner, fourth respondent Institution on two previous occasions called for candidates from the Employment Exchange and after interview, the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange on those two occasions were found unsuitable. Subsequently also the Institution called for a list from the Employment Exchange for the third time. However, no such list has been furnished within the stipulation period, the application of the present petitioner, even though she was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, was considered and after interview, she was selected and appointed. Such appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer by Proceedings ROC. No. 181/95-96 dated 13. 9. 1996, subject to the condition that she should pass typewriting examination Higher Grade within one year. Subsequently, the Chief Educational Officer by Proceedings in R. O. C. No. 5891/97 dated 23. 12. 1997 directed to stop the grant for payment of salary so far as the petitioner is concerned. The authorities had also advised the school to terminate the services of the petitioner. These actions were apparently taken on the ground that the petitioner had not passed the typewriting test as stipulated in the approval and further on the ground that the names furnished by the employment exchange, even though belatedly, had not been considered.

(3.) SO far as the first ground is concerned, it is of course true that the petitioner had not passed the typewriting as stipulated in the condition of approval within a period of one year. However, admittedly the petitioner passed such examination in January, 1998. The time fixed for passing the typewriting examination, in the facts and circumstances of the case, must be considered to be directory in nature and since the petitioner admittedly passed such examination within a few months after the stipulated period, the matter has to be considered rather sympathetically. Since the Management did not have any objection for the continuation of the petitioner and before any formal order of termination had been passed she had already passed the examination, there cannot be any objection for further continuance of the petitioner.