FARHAT ANJUM Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 3rd respondent- institution, admitted to grant-in-aid; in the year 1994. Her appointment against unaided vacancy was approved in the year 1998 by the District Educational Officer, the 1st respondent herein.

(2.) On an application submitted by the 3rd respondent, and on the recommendations made by the respondents 1 and 2, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 21-02-2003, admitting 5 SGT posts in the 3rd respondent- institution, into grant-in-aid. The 1st respondent submitted proposals for absorption of the 5 teachers, including the petitioner against aided vacancies. The Commissioner and Director of School Education the 2nd respondent, however, accorded permission for absorption of 4 teachers, excluding the petitioner, and consequential orders were issued by the 1st respondent on 18-08-2003. In those orders, it was mentioned that separate orders would be issued in respect of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that no orders have been passed, and she seeks appropriate directions in this regard.

(3.) A counter-affidavit is filed, on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. The fact, that the petitioner was appointed against an unaided vacancy; her appointment was approved in the year 1998, and that her name was recommended for absorption against one of the aided vacancies, sanctioned through G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 21-02-2003; is admitted. It is, however, stated that while considering the proposals for approval of 5 teachers, the 2nd respondent wanted to know as to whether there is any teacher, senior to the petitioner, left out for approval, and awaiting information on that, approval was accorded for absorption of 4 other teachers. The 1st respondent is said to have informed the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 02-02-2008, that a teacher, by name, Smt. Sarwar Sultana, who was senior to the petitioner, was selected as SG teacher in District Selection Committee in 2002, and resigned the job in the 3rd respondent-institution. The reason for non-approval of the name of the petitioner for absorption against aided vacancy, is said to be the ban imposed by the Government in the year 2004.