MAHARANI Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prayed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus seeking for a direction against the first respondent to post the petitioner as Post Graduate Teacher at Government Higher Secondary School at Kurunikulathupatti, Karur District in terms of the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.33697/W2/E2/2012 dated 11.07.2012, otherwise post the petitioner as Post Graduate Teacher at Government Higher Secondary School at Manmangalam, Karur District.

(2.) The petitioner joined services of the first respondent as a Science Teacher and thereafter, as she completed M.Sc., Zoology, he was promoted to the post of Post Graduate Teacher. As per the norms, the first respondent conducted counselling by calling eligible candidates and the petitioner has also attended counselling on 11.07.2012 wherein the first respondent had declared two vacancies in Karur District in two schools namely Government Higher Secondary School, Thogamalai, Government Higher Secondary School, Kurunikulathupatti. The petitioner has chosen those two schools as her two children were studying in school. The petitioner opted for Kurunikulathupatti school and after counselling was over, the petitioner found that the first respondent has not conducted the counselling in a fair manner and the number of vacancies was not shown correctly in respect of Karur District and wrong vacancy places were shown. When the petitioner approached the Headmaster of Government Higher Secondary School, Kurunikulathupatti, he was orally informed that there is no vacancy at their school in the Post of Post Graduate Teacher(Biology) and the Headmaster also orally informed the same through his proceedings dated 17.07.2012 to the first respondent. In view of the said fact, the petitioner was unable to join in the place where she was given promotion in the counselling. Thereafter, the petitioner verified and found that there was vacancy in Post Graduate (Biology) subject at Manmangalam Higher Secondary School before counselling, but the first respondent has not shown the said school during counselling in the list of available vacancy in Karur District.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that due to the wrong decision of the first respondent, the petitioner was put into trouble and she was not able to join the school. According to the petitioner, the first respondent is totally against the concept of counselling and also has deprived the petitioner from getting promotion in her own District and hence, she has come forward to file this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.