M VIMALA Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a teacher on ad hoc basis in Bharatiya vidya Bhavan's Public School, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, 2nd respondent herein, on 22. 06. 2003. With short breaks, she was issued orders of re-appointment in 2004 and 2005 and was being paid salary on consolidated basis. The 2nd respondent issued orders, dated 25. 01. 2006, placing the petitioner under probation, for a period of one year, with effect from 01. 01. 2006, in the pay scale of Rs. 4,500-125-7,000/ -. It was also mentioned that the probation would be initially till 31. 12. 2006 and shall not be effective thereafter, unless any fresh order is issued extending the probation. Some correspondence ensued between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent as to the genuinity of the certificates of qualifications submitted by her. Through an order, dated 07. 03. 2007, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that she is allowed to continue as Primary Grade Teacher up to the end of the academic year 2006-07, meaning thereby that her services are not required thereafter. The petitioner challenges the same, as being illegal, arbitrary and violativie of principles of natural justice and Sections 79 and 83 of the A. P. Education Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act' ).

(2.) IT is contended that with the expiry of one year from 01. 01. 2006, the probation of the petitioner concluded and thereby, she became the regular member of service in the 2nd respondent-institution. It is also pleaded that the impugned order is not preceded by an order of approval by the competent authority under the Act and the Rules made thereunder.

(3.) THE respondents filed a counter affidavit, opposing the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that even while the petitioner was under probation, it emerged that the University, from which the petitioner is said to have acquired the qualification, was not recognized by the U. G. C. , and though the petitioner made a request through her representation with a prayer to extend the probation, the institution expressed its inability to do so, on account of the fact that the petitioner did not hold the requisite qualifications. It is pleaded that the prior permission under Sections 79 and 83 of the Act was not necessary, since the petitioner was not a regular employee.