KAUSHALYA CHAUDHARY Vs. RAKSHA MANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Should the respondent who has continued to function as Principal since September 1988 be reverted to her substantive post after the lapse of ten years ? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The appellant as well as the first respondent are employed with the Hindu Girls Senior Secondary School. The appellant had joined service as Lecturer in September 1966. In August 1984, her services were terminated. On June 10, 1985, the Director of Public Instructions had set aside this order under Rule 28 of the Haryana Aided Schools (Security of Service) Rules, 1974 as the requisite show cause notice had not been given to her. As against this, the first respondent has joined service as a Mistress (Trained Graduate Teacher) in September 1969. In August 1983, the claim of the appellant as well as the first respondent was considered for appointment to the post of Vice Principal. The respondent was selected.

(3.) While the first respondent was acting as the Vice Principal of the School, the post of Principal had fallen vacant. On September 8, 1988, the respondent was selected. Feeling aggrieved by the selection and the consequential appointment of the first respondent, the appellant had filed a representation before the Director of Public Instructions. She claimed that being senior, she had a right to be appointed as the Principal. Vide order dated October 15, 1990, the appellant's claim was accepted by the Director. Resultantly, he ordered that the appellant be appointed as the Principal. Aggrieved by this order, the first respondent approached this Court through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was admitted. The operation of the order passed by the Director was stayed.