MAN IU DEVI Vs. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule was obtained by the petitioner for quashing order of the Director of Public instruction, State of West Bengal, as petitioner's appointment as permanent teacher of a School was not approved and for incidental reliefs.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the petitioner's case is that she was appointed as an assistant teacher of a School known as "belgharia Jatindas Vidyamundir for girls" on probation on April 34, 1969 for one year against a permanent vacancy on a monthly salary of rs. 220/- in the Higher Secondary section of Humanities Department. At the material time she was a graduate securing Honours in English and also an M. A. in the same subject of the calcutta University. She completed her period of probation on the expiry of the year 1970. And thereafter while continuing as a permanent teacher in the School, she received on or about 27th November, 1972, from the Secretary of the School a letter in which she was told that the Director of Public instruction disapproved her appointment since communicated to the school under a mean of August 9, 1979. and accordingly her service would stand terminated with effect from 1st January, 1973. She asked for a copy of the me mo in writing thereafter, but that was not supplied to her.

(3.) THE petitioner's further case is, as the Managing Committee of the School became defunct after the expiry of 30th april, 1970, under the new set of Rules for the management of non-Government Institution (Aided and unaided)1969, such a letter terminating her ser vice was entirely un authorised and invalid. Still further case of the petitioner is that after the completion of her probationary period and having continued in her service for a period of 3 years and 8 months, the Director of Public Instruction had no power to disapprove her appointment as she became automatically permanent in her post. At any rate, she was not given any opportunity before such in order was made and the order is otherwise invalid as net made in accordance with the rules. It is said that in spite of her representation on demand for withdrawal of the impugned order and notice justice was denied to her. That is how, in short she felt aggrieved and obtained the present Rule.