M.STELLA Vs. CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the writ petitioner. She moved the Writ Court and challenged the order of the second respondent, dated 04.01.2018, in refusing to correct the staff fixation done on 01.08.2015 to indicate the surplus of one graduate teacher post with teacher instead of without teacher. Consequently, the petitioner sought for direction to the respondents to approve her appointment as BT Assistant (Science) from the date of her appointment i.e., 01.06.2015. The Writ Court dismissed the writ petition mainly on the reason that the writ petitioner has failed to prove that she was actually appointed on 01.06.2015 and since the staff strength was reduced from 6 Science Teachers to 5 for the academic year 2015-16, the petitioner's claim for regularization or approval cannot be considered. Hence, the present appeal is filed challenging the order of the Writ Court.

(2.) The case of the appellant, in short, is as follows:- She passed B.Sc., and B.Ed., and thus, fully qualified for the post of B.T. Assistant. She joined the third respondent school as management staff in the year 2005. One post of B.T. Assistant (Science) became vacant on 31.05.2015 due to retirement of a teacher, by name, D.Daisy Kirubakari. The third respondent school is a minority institution and thus, entitled to have the right of appointment. Accordingly, she was selected and appointed as B.T. Assistant on 01.06.2015 in the above said sanctioned permanent vacancy. Management sent proposal to the second respondent for approval on 22.09.2015. The proposal was resubmitted again for approval on 23.06.2016 and the same was returned by the second respondent on the reason that the same was sent belatedly. As per the staff fixation report for the year 2014-2015, 13 B.T. Assistant posts were sanctioned and the writ petitioner was appointed in one such sanctioned post. For the year 2015-2016, staff fixation report was filed on 30.10.2015, after the date of the writ petitioner's appointment. In the staff fixation for the year 2015-2016, one post of B.T. Assistant was declared surplus. Since the writ petitioner was appointed in a sanctioned post, much earlier to the fixation of staff strength for 2015-2016, she is entitled to get approval of her appointment. However, the second respondent refused to correct the staff strength and thus, the writ petitioner was compelled to move the above writ petition.

(3.) The Writ Court, going by the staff strength fixed for the academic year 2015-2016 and finding that the staff strength of B.T. Assistant (Science) was reduced from 6 to 5, also by noting that the proposal for approval was sent only on 23.06.2016, rejected the writ petition. In other words, the crux of the finding rendered by the Writ Court is to the effect that the writ petitioner has not proved that she was appointed on 01.06.2015, during which time, admittedly, the staff strength for Science Teachers was fixed as 6.