M GNANA PRASUNAMBA Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER NELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petiuon is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the salaries due to the petitioner from 3-3-1997 to till date as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to pay the salaries due to him.

(2.) According to the petitioner she was selected and appointed by the Staff Selection Committee on 25-2-1997 against unaided secondary grade teacher vacancy in the fourth respondent school. The said appointment was approved by the competent authority as required under law. She joined and reported for duty on 3/03/1997 and since then the petitioner is being continuously engaged as teacher till date, but her salary is not being paid though her services are being utilized regularly. The petitioner asserts that under G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated 1-1-1994 as per Rule 17 of the Rules she is entitled for being paid salaries as prescribed by the Governing Body of the Educational Institutions. According to the petitioner in the very appointment order it was made clear that she is entitled for pay scales on par with S.G.B.T. teachers appointed against the unaided vacancies. Though this is the position, the petitioner is deprived ot salaries since last more than six years.

(3.) Counter has been filed by the fourth respondent. It is not disputed that the petitioner was selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee and her appointment was ratified by the competent authority as required under law and she joined duly on 3/03/1997. In Para 11 of the counter it is stated that the school is not collecting any fees from any of its students except Rs.4.50 per student per year for the purpose of examination. Except that, the school is not getting any income from the students, anybody or persons concerned. It is further asserted that Rules 17 and 18 of G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated 1-1-1994 are not applicable to the 4th respondent school and the school is not held responsible to pay the salaries of the petitioner. The said rules as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.1 are applicable only where any fees is collected by the school. Therefore, the 4th respondent School is not liable to pay the salaries to the petitioner.