E MUTHU KALA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that she was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th respondent school, on 17.4.96. Her appointment had been duly approved by the second respondent in his Letter Na.Ka.5251/A3/96, dated 15.10.1996. THE third respondent had also approved the appointment of the petitioner. On 27.8.99, the third respondent, by his proceedings, in Na.Ka.1558/A1/98, had ordered the stoppage of payment of salary to the petitioner. THE reason stated in the proceedings of the third respondent is that the petitioner's appointment is against the Rules and therefore, it requires the necessary ratification from the Government. On 13.11.98, the second respondent had sent a communication to the fourth respondent stating that a sum of Rs.87,056/- which had been paid to the petitioner as salary, from 17.4.96 till the month of March 1998, should be recovered from her and to be paid to the Government. THE reason given is that the petitioner had been appointed in the vacancy meant for the candidate belonging to the Most Backward Community. Instead the petitioner who belongs to the Backward Community had been appointed and therefore, the said appointment is irregular.

(3.) BASED on the orders passed by the second respondent, the third respondent had assessed and released the grant to the petitioner from 17.4.96 to 31.7.99. Later, it was stopped pursuant to the objections raised by the Assistant Director, Departmental of Audit, Tirunelveli, during the course of audit of the accounts of the office of the third respondent for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98.