K GIRIJA Vs. DIRECTOR OF MATRICULATION SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that she is a qualified person with M.Com., and B.Ed., degrees. Based on her qualifications the third respondent management had appointed the petitioner as a Nursery teacher, on 17.8.83. Later, she was confirmed in service, on 17.8.84. THEreafter, she was promoted as a Secondary Grade Teacher and posted in the third respondent school, on 7.6.89. Even though she was due for Selection Grade, on 7.6.99, it was postponed on the ground that dearness allowance was stopped for 12 months for certain serious lapses alleged against her. However, no charges had been framed against the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted for the alleged lapses. THErefore, the denial of Selection Grade to the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. Even though the petitioner had been paid in the scale of pay of Rs.5500/- (basic pay), along with the other allowances amounting to Rs.8321/- upto the month of July, 2002, she was paid the basic pay of Rs.5,000/-, without any other allowance, in the month of August, 2002. Such reduction in her basic pay and the denial of dearness allowance, house rent allowance and city compensatory allowance to the petitioner is without any justification.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not been in a position to show that the third respondent school is an institution coming under the definition of `State', under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.