JAGMINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is M.A. with B.Ed. and who was selected for appointment as Headmistress in the school run by respondent No. 3, has filed this writ petition for the issuance of a writ or a direction to quash the order dated 12.8.1987 (Annexure P.4) passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the said respondent has declined to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress of Kamalia Khalsa High School, Kapurthala.

(2.) The facts which have brought on record show that the petitioner joined the service as a Teacher at Kamalia Khalsa High School, Kapurthala on the basis of her appointment vide resolution dated 11.4.1974 of the Managing Committee. Her appointment was approved by the Managing Committee. Her appointment was approved by the authorities of the Education Department of the Government of Punjab. In the year 1986 respondent No. 3, advertised the post of Headmistress for Kamalia Khalsa High School, Kapurthala. The petitioner was one of the applicants for the same post. She was interviewed on 14.12.1986 by the Sub- Committee constituted under Rule 7 of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools, Employees (Security of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, the rules). The Managing Committee of the School accepted the recommendations of the Sub- Committee and on that basis, appointment letter dated 22.12.1986 (annexure P.3) was issued by the Manager of the Kamalia Khalsa High School, Kapurthala appointing the petitioner as Headmistress in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1600. She was placed on probation for a period of one year. In terms of the provisions of Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 and the rules framed thereunder, appointment of the petitioner was required to be approved by the authorities of the Education Department of the Government of Punjab. Therefore, the Managing Committee submitted the case of the petitioner before the District Education Officer, Kapurthala for his approval. The District Education Officer, Kapurthala, refused to approve the appointment of petitioner as Headmistress on the ground that she is not possessed with the requisite experience. Communication dated 12.8.1987 (Annexure P-4) containing the refusal of the District Education Officer was conveyed to the President of the School, who, in turn, informed the petitioner about this decision of the District Education Officer vide letter dated 14.9.1987 (Annexure P.5).

(3.) The petitioner has questioned the legality of the decision taken by the District Education Officer on the ground that the Act of 1979 and the rules framed thereunder do not contemplate the experience as a Master, Mistress as a condition-precedent for appointment as Head Master/Mistress and, therefore, the petitioner who possessed more than 12 years' experience as Teacher on the date of advertisement, was fully qualified for appointment as Headmistress and the District Education Officer has declined approval on wholly extraneous grounds.