ESTHER KIRUBAVATHY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who has argued her case in person has prayed for quashing the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in O. Mu. No. 2478/e3/2001 dated 22. 3. 2002 and in O. Mu. No. 2572/e3/2002 dated 6. 5. 2002 and the 4th respondent dated 16. 5. 2002 and consequently directing the third respondent to consider the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as a regular Lecturer in English under 4th respondent college.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition are as follows: -The petitioner passed M. A. , in English in the second respondent University in December, 1980. At that stage, she was awarded an overall Grade- B with an overall grade point average of 4. 29. Subsequently, she passed M. Phil. in first class in the year 1986. She was appointed as a Lecturer in English in the Evening College of the first respondent and worked as such continuously from 1987 till 1996. For sometime she had also worked as temporary Lecturer in the Day College of the fourth respondent in the place of a permanent incumbent which had been approved by the second respondent. The second respondent in their earlier letter dated 12. 11. 1002 had informed the fourth respondent that the petitioner had passed M. A. (English) with 52. 9%, qualified for the post of Lecturer as per the prescribed qualification then in force. The third respondent vide its order dated 9. 5. 1994 had approved for extending Government grant for temporary appointment as Lecturer in the leave vacancies from 8. 10. 1993 to 2. 1. 1994 and from 4. 1. 1994 to 4. 3. 1994. Similar orders were passed by the third respondent by order dated 28. 8. 1997 extending Government grant for appointment of the petitioner on temporary basis as a Lecturer in Loyola College from 12. 1. 1996 to 11. 4. 1996 and from 26. 6. 1996 to 10. 4. 1997. Similar orders were also passed by the third respondent for the academic year 1998-99 as well as 1999-2000. Thus, the petitioner had worked as Lecturer in Loyolla College for more than 5 years during which she was either getting UGC Scale while functioning on temporary basis against leave vacancies or on management scale otherwise. While the matter stood thus, the first respondent issued G. O. Ms. No. 111 dated 24. 3. 1999. Annexure II of such G. O. , dealt with educational qualifications for the post of Lecturer, which was to the following effect :-

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY, on 2. 4. 2002, the second respondent addressed a letter No. A-III/2/2002/629 to the fourth respondent indicating that the petitioner was qualified to hold the post of Lecturer in English. At that time, the petitioner was working as Lecturer under fourth respondent college. However, at that stage, the fourth respondent served letter dated 16. 5. 2002 indicating that third respondent, namely, the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, had not approved the petitioners appointment on the ground that the petitioner had secured 52. 9% marks in M. A. , whereas the minimum requirement was 55% marks. The petitioner was called upon to obtain revised consolidated mark statement in the second respondent University. The communication of the fourth respondent is obviously based on the communication received from the third respondent dated 22. 3. 2002, wherein the third respondent observed that since the petitioner had secured 52. 9% marks, the letter given by the second respondent University that she was in Grade-B and, therefore, eligible, was not acceptable. These communications from third and fourth respondents have been challenged in the present writ petition.