INDU TRIPATHI Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MADHYAMIC ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.9.2000 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 4. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to work as Assistant Teacher and to pay her salary.

(2.) There is an intermediate college known as Rama Devi Balika Inter College, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the college). There happened three vacancies of teachers in B.T.C, grade in respect to which the management held selection in accordance with the provisions of Education Act. For all these posts, different sets of panel of two candidates each were prepared. The dispute survives only in respect to the post which is being claimed by the petitioner which is general category post for which, admittedly, Smt. Neelam Kapoor was placed at Sl. No. 1 and the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 2. The petitioner claims that Smt. Neelam Kapoor was not eligible and qualified and, therefore, her name in the panel at Sl. No. 1 was clearly illegal and her selection as such was void and the petitioner being next, on top was entitled to be given appointment. It appears that the management recommended the name of Km. Durga Singh who was at Sl. No. 2 in the panel prepared for backward class candidates to be appointed in place of Smt. Neelam Kapoor which was challenged by the present writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 18253 of 1998. This Court on 22,5.1998 disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the District inspector of Schools to decide the petitioner's representation by reasoned order. It is in pursuance of the direction of this Court, the District Inspector of Schools decided the representation of the petitioner by order dated 28/29.9.1998 and found that the petitioner being at Sl. No. 2 in the panel prepared for general category candidates was entitled to be appointed as Smt. Neelam Kapoor who was at Sl. No. 1 was not having proper B.Ed, certificate. Km. Durga Singh challenged the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 28/29.9.1998 by which the claim of the present petitioner for the post in question, was accepted by the District Inspector of Schools by filing Writ Petition No. 33321 of 1998, which was dismissed by this Court on merits by its judgment dated 19.8.1999. The relevant extract from the judgment of this Court for the purposes of this case, is useful to be quoted as under : "Once it was found that Smt. Neelam Kapoor did not possess proper B.Ed, certificate, Smt. Indu Tripathi being at Sl. No. 2 was entitled under the law to be appointed. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools and the order dated 28/29.9.1998 is liable to be maintained."

(3.) As inspite of the orders of the District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner was not given appointment, the representations were made by the petitioner which were also not attended, then the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 37607 of 2000 which came to be disposed of by this Court by order dated 25.8.2000 by issuing direction to the Committee of Management to decide the petitioner's claim by a reasoned order. It was also mentioned in the order that the Committee will decide the matter without being influenced by any observation made In the Judgment. It is thereafter, the respondent No. 4 proceeded to consider the petitioner's claim and has rejected the same by its resolution dated 10.9.2000 as communicated by letter dated 19.10.2000 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). It is against this decision of the management, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.