M RUKMANI DEVI Vs. CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.4.1995 in W.P.No.10311 of 1994, whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant, seeking for a writ of mandamus to implement the orders of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.22945/A2/92 dated 21.4.1994 and to reinstate the appellant as teacher in the 3rd respondent school with all backwages payable to the appellant during the period of suspension, come to be dismissed.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the petitioner was working as a School Assistant in the 3rd respondent School; that she is a daughter of the Correspondent of the 3rd respondent School and also the sister of the Head Master of the said school; that owing to certain personal and family disputes a suit for partition in O.S. No.103 of 1991 came to be filed on the file of the District Munsif, Tuticorin by the appellant and that the same was decreed in her favour. THE defendant in that suit appears to have filed an appeal in A.S.No.62 of 1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Tutucorin and the same is said to be pending. According to the appellant, enraged at this and for no fault of the appellant by proceedings dated 14.12.1992 the appellant was placed under suspension with effect from 17.12.1992, pending framing of charges. THEreafter, charges were said to have been framed and the appellant also submitted her explanation. An enquiry was said to have been conducted and as a consequence of the same, the 3rd respondent appears to have submitted proposals for prior approval of the 2nd respondent for terminating the services of the petitioner from the School even before the expiry of four months of the period of suspension. According to the 3rd respondent no orders have been passed thereon and the 2nd respondent was adopting silent attitude. At that stage; the 3rd respondent school appears to have wrote a letter to the 2nd respondent on 15.4.1993 surrendering the secondary grade post held by the appellant in the 3rd respondent school along with her services with effect from 17.4.1993 and requesting the 2nd respondent to resume the post by virtue of the powers delegated in G.O.Ms.No.1664 Edn dated 4.6.1978 so that posting may be given to the appellant in some other needy school. THE appellant has also been representing to the 2nd respondent complaining about the nondisbursal of the subsistence allowance and also the circumstances in which the appellant was being harassed by the 3rd respondent School.

(3.) THE 3rd respondent has also filed a counter-affidavit, wherein while denying the claims of the petitioner, it was contended that in view of the surrender of the post made by the 3rd respondent with the services of the appellant, no further relief can be asked against the 3rd respondent. It was also contended in the counter affidavit that the appellate authority so far as the appellant is concerned is the 1st respondent and not the 2nd respondent and that, therefore, there is no jurisdiction for the 2nd respondent to pass any order, particularly the order dated 21.4.1994. It was also contended that in the absence of the grant the 3rd respondent cannot be made liable for any sum to the appellant and that the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to direct reinstatement of the appellant in the School. THE 3rd respondent also claimed that representations were entertained from the appellant behind the back of the 3rd respondent and that therefore the order dated 21.4.1994 is violative of principles of natural justice. THE learned single Judge was of the view that on the face of it the order appears to have been passed not in conformity with the requirement of natural justice in that the same proceeded to rely upon the opinion given by the Assistant Educational Officer and in the absence of communication of such opinion to the 3rd respondent the order passed by the 2nd respondent has to be considered as the one passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. On that view, the learned single Judge thought that the writ of mandamus, being a discretionary remedy, the discretion of this Court need not be exercised at the instance of the appellant. Aggrieved, the above writ Appeal has been preferred.