(1.) The petitioner herein joined as a Junior Assistant in the third respondent school through employment exchange on 18.01.1989. She has got qualification of B.A. (English) in 1982 and B.Ed. in 1991 (After joining the school). The petitioner was then subsequently promoted as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the vacancy on 19.06.1997. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the second respondent.
(2.) The petitioner would further contend that based on a judgment of this Hon'ble High Court, Government issued orders regularising the services of those persons, who were appointed prior to 19.05.1998, with a condition to undergo Child Psychology Training for a period of one month and appointment thereon as fresh appointment in G.O.Ms. No. 155, School Education Department, dated 03.10.2002. As per this order, the persons, who were appointed prior to 19.05.1998 were given time scale of pay and annual increment were denied and that they were appointed as a fresh appointee from the date of completion of Child Psychology Training and were fit in the scale of pay at a minimum of Rs. 4500/-. Accordingly, the petitioner was also given the status and therefore, the petitioner challenged this in W.P. No. 7496 of 2004. In the meanwhile, when the post of B.T. Assistant became vacant in the third respondent school on 08.07.1999, the petitioner applied for the same to consider her for promotion as B.T. Assistant. But, however, she was denied the same on the basis of the alleged letter dated 25.08.1999, which was obtained from her by compulsion as if she is not pressing her claim. But, she would also claim that the management given assurance to the effect that in the next vacancy she will be considered. The next vacancy also arose on 29.08.2000 and she applied for the same and the management rejected the same by order dated 29.03.2001 on the ground that she was not eligible. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent/the appellate authority and the first respondent rejected the appeal by impugned order dated 20.08.2004 on the ground that inasmuch as the petitioner became a Secondary Grade Teacher only from 02.06.2003 the date on which the petitioner was sponsored for Child Psychology Training, from that date alone the petitioner was qualified as a Secondary Grade Teacher and in view of the dispute in the Management, the proposal for approval from the date of completion of Child Psychology Training is yet to be received. The rejection of the petitioner for selection was valid. The appellate authority would specifically state that inasmuch as when the promotion as Secondary Grade Teacher itself has not been approved and B.T. (English) qualified person cannot be promoted in the vacancy of B.T. (History), the rejection made by the first respondent was valid and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Aggrieved against this, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition.
(3.) The petitioner would contend that when the school was upgraded as High School in 1986, only two posts of B.T. Assistant and one post of Tamil Pandit were sanctioned. The above two B.T. Assistant posts were directed to be filled one for Maths and another one for English and inasmuch as those two subjects are important subjects in the High School keeping in mind that students in other subjects could be taught by anybody. Ignoring the Government guideline, the third respondent has filled up the posts by one Science and History Teacher. No history post was sanctioned at any point of time. The very appointment itself was illegal and as on date there was no other teacher for English. She cannot be considered on the vacancy of B.T. (History). She would be considered for that post in case she has B.A. (History), whereas the original sanctioned post was only English post, which she is very much entitled to.