SNEHALATA DEI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has made this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order as per Annexure-9 passed by the State Government according approval to the promotion of the opposite party No. 4, namely, Smt. Anusuya Mishra, as the Fourth Trained Graduate Teacher in the Sundargarh Girls High School in the district of Cuttack, with effect from March 2, 1981 mentioning therein that the case of the Petitioner would be taken up for consideration against the Fifth Trained Graduate Teacher as per the new yardstick.

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.R. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3. The Managing Committee which has been added as an opposite party has not entered appearance. None has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 4.

(3.) The fact emerging from the writ application and the counter affidavit put in by the opposite parties 1 to 3 are that the Petitioner was appointed on August 16, 1974 against a Trained Intermediate Teacher's post and the opposite party No. 4 had been appointed on August 19, 1971 against the post of a Trained Metric Teacher. Both the Petitioner and the opposite party No. 4 later became trained graduates. The Petitioner obtained B.Ed. qualification in the year 1977 and the opposite party No. 4 obtained the same qualification in 1979. While the opposite party No. 4 was senior according to the length of service of both herself and the Petitioner, she has later taken the B.Ed. course. On a suggestion made by the Director (Opposite Party No. 2), the case of the Petitioner was considered for promotion and a Government decision was taken for promotion of the Petitioner to the post of the Fourth Trained Graduate Teacher in the school with effect from July 7, 1980 as per Annexure-l3. It would, however, appear from the record of the State Government produced before us and from the statement made by Mr. Mohanty on behalf of the opposite parties 1 to 3 that this decision was not given effect to and the issue of the letter as per Annexure-13 was withheld because of a representation made by the opposite party No. 4 against it. It is, indeed, surprising as to how the Petitioner has been able to get a copy of the letter a true copy of which has been annexed to the writ application. The matter was thereafter considered and the decision taken as per Annexure-13 was reversed and it was decided to promote the opposite party No. 4 as per Annexure-9. This decision had been taken at a time when the decision of the State Government as per Annexure-13 had not been communicated and therefore, it was well within the competence of the State Government to do so.