R SUGANDAMMA Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the issue of a writ, quashing the order of the Deputy Inspector of Schools (2nd respondent) dated 7-1-1984 and for a direction to the 1st respondent (District Educational Officer, Kurnool) and to the 2nd respondent to release the grant-in-aid for the post of Headmistress in the A.B.M. Elementary School, Gargeyapuram, Hindu range, Kurnool.

(2.) The3rdrespondent-The American Baptist Mission, Kurnool, represented by its Correspondent, is stated to be a minority institution running schools in several vi llages in Kurnool District, propagating its religion, after obtaining the necessary recognition from the competent authorities. It is stated that all the schools are located in the respective Church compounds in those villages and that the 3rd respondent-association has been receiving teaching grants and other grants from the Government under the Grant-in-Aid Rules for the time being in force. One Mr.R. Peter, who was working as Headmaster in the Elementary School run by the 3rd respondent at Gargeyapuram died on 30-11-1983. The petitioner, who is a retrenched employee in the 3rd respondent-organisation, submitted an application for consideration of her case for appointment as Headmistress. The 3rd respondent, in its proceedings dated 5-12-1983, appointed the petitioner as Headmistress in the vacancy of the said R. Peter and directed the petitioner to send joining report to the 2nd respondent also. The petitioner joined duty on 27-12-83 and took over charge from the Acting Headmistress. The petitioner sent her joining report to the 2nd respondent. On receiving the same, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned order dated 7-1-84 stating that no grant will be assessed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been appointed in the vacancy caused by the demise of Sri R. Peter, inasmuch as both the posts are outside the purview of the Correspondent. It is also stated that orders have to be issued only by the District Educational Officer, Kurnool. Copies of the same were despatched to the Correspondent and to the District Educational Officer as well as the petitioner. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit, it is admitted that the 3rd respondent organisation is a "minority" organisation. The former Headmaster Sri R. Peter used to get his salary through the Department instead of the Correspondent. It is stated that the petitioner's appointment is contrary to the proceedings of the Director of Public Instruction, Andhra Pradesh in Rc.No. 6496-B2/68, dated 26-6-69 and of the Government in G.O.Rt.No. 896, Education dated 16-6-68. Under the said G.O. the post of Headmistress/Head master in Aided Elementary Schools and Upper Primary Schools has to be filled up by the management, on the basis of seniority-cum-merit among the qualified teachers, working under the same management. It is also stated that, under the bye-laws of the 3rd respondent-association, the Executive Committee is competent to make appointments with the approval of the General Body but the Correspondent is not competent to appoint Headmistress/Headmaster or Teachers. In this case, the Executive Committee is said to have given a representation dated 10-11-1983 to the District Educational Officer, Kurnool, stating that the Correspondent had no power of appointment in the absence of approval of the General Body and the Executive Committee. It is stated that the Correspondent failed to produce the seniority list of teachers. It is further contended that, as per the proceedings of the Director of Public Instruction, Andhra Pradesh, in R.CNo. 3510/B1-2/73, dated 30-8-1973 the appointments made by the Management must be approved by the Department in all aided posts. The petitioner's appointment was not approved by the department, for the reasons above mentioned, and so the grant-in-aid cannot be released. The grant is to the institution and not to any individual and the petitioner has no claim as an individual. It is alleged that, under Art. 30 of the Constitution of India, the protection is given to the minority institution but not to the individual employees of the institution.