DAYA SHARMA Vs. SHAKUNTALA TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the controversy between the writ petitioner Km. Shakuntala Tandon on the one hand and the Committee of Management and the District INspector of Schools, on the other, regarding the option of Km. Shakuntala Tandon to retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years and her subsequent withdrawal of it does the mere expectation of promotion, consequent upon Km. Shakuntala Tandon's retirement from service, give rise to a cause of action to the appellant Smt. Daya Sharma to intervene in the matter, solely on the ground that she is next in seniority to Km. Shakuntala Tandon ? IN other words, does she in the circumstances have any locus-standi to contest the relief sought by the writ petitioner Km. Shakuntala Tandon ? Herein lies the issue that arises at the very outset in this Special Appeal.

(2.) TO give the relevant factual background, on January 2, 1991 Km. Shakuntala Tandon gave her optical to retire from service at the age of 58 years. This option, she later withdrew on November 24, 1993 and December 21, 1993. The District Inspector of Schools on his part wrote to the Committee of Management on December 29, 1993 seeking their comments, on the withdrawal of the option by Km Shakuntala Tandon. The due date of retirement of Km. Shakuntala Tandon was June 30, 1996 but it would be June 30, 1994 if withdrawl of her option to retire at the age of 58 years was not permitted.

(3.) EARLIER too while dealing with a similar situation a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal 842 of 1993 (Smt. Kamla Sharma v. Deputy Director of Education) decided on December 20, 1993 had observed" the matter as to whether in terms of the option exercised by the writ petitioner and the service rules governing her condition of service, she should be allowed to continue upto the age of 60 years or should be made to retire at the age of 58 years is entirely between the petitioner and the education authorities of the State. The appellant Smt. Kamala Sharma cannot be allowed to contended that the writ petitioner should be made to retire at the age of 58 years.