H MANIMEKALAI Vs. S SUGANYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contempt petition has been filed under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for her willful disobedience of the order, dated 10. 4. 2006, made in W. P. No. 39154 of 2004, on the file of this Court.

(2.) IT has been stated by the petitioner that she is a destitute lady deserted by her husband. She had qualified as a Tailoring Instructor and had worked as a part time Tailoring Instructor in Government Schools for over two years. During the year, 1990, the second respondent had conducted an interview for selecting permanent Tailoring Instructors for appointment in Government Schools. Though the petitioner was 36 years of age, she was eligible to be sponsored for the interview on account of the age relaxation granted in her favour, as she was in part time service. However, the District Employment Officer, Krishnagiri, the third respondent in the writ petition, was unwilling to consider the name of the petitioner to be sponsored for the selection stating that the petitioner was over aged. Therefore, the petitioner had filed O. A. No. 3106 of 1990, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, praying for a necessary direction to the authorities concerned to sponsor her name for the selection.

(3.) AS per the order passed by the Tribunal, the Chief Educational Officer, Dharmapuri, had interviewed the petitioner. However, before the results of the interview were published, the Tribunal had passed the final order, dated 6. 10. 1990, directing the respondents therein to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment by relaxing the age limit. The Chief Educational Officer, Dharmapuri, by his letter, dated 4. 4. 1992, had informed the petitioner about the inclusion of her name in the selection list of Tailoring Instructors and had stated that the results would be communicated after obtaining the necessary clarification from the Director of Education. However, the results were not published.