ATIQA BANO Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, namely, Atiqa Bano is an employee in the Education Department and through the medium of this petition she has claimed the charge allowance from May, 1991 onwards as she according to her has been holding the post of Joint Director Schools Kashmir. She has also prayed that by a writ of mandamus the respondents may be directed to assign her the job of Joint Director Schools as already she stands appointed against that post from May, 1991. The writ petition discloses that she has been fighting litigation with the Department, in other writ petitions also, both in Jammu and in Kashmir Wings. She has referred to filing of a writ petition in the year 1992 in Jammu Wing of this Court when Respondent No.2 herein had not allowed her to work as Joint Director School Education, Kashmir, and her pay was withheld.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the writ petition is pending for disposal and no notice has been yet issued to the respondents. During the pendancy of that writ petition wherein she has sought amendment of the relief, Government Order No. 146 -Edu of 1993 dated 8 -2 -1993 was issued and the person working as District Education Officers were re - disignated as Chief Education Officers and adjusted as such on adhoc basis in the pay scale of Rs.3000 -4500, for a period of six months. She has alleged that she was the senior most Education Officer but her seniority was wrongly shown and she filed writ petition No. 1115/86 before the Srinagar Wing of the Court (factual statement is self contradictory as made in the writ petition).

(3.) ACCORDING to her, in terms of Government Order No, 146 -Edu of 1993 dated 8 -2 -1993 (annexure -D) the post of Joint Director has been down -graded to the level of Chief Education Officer and this has given her a new cause of action and has challenged the said order on the grounds that respondents -State in this order has given an impression that the adjustment of the petitioner as Chief Education Officer was a promotion which fact is not correct because she already was working as District Education Officer and that the adjustment of the District Education Officer as Chief Education Officer on adhoc basis is arbitrary and illegal. The abolition of District Education Officers post was not warranted; She has claimed that she should be given the grade of Chief Education Officer w.e.f 11 -2 -1987 when the post of District Education Officer was abolished. She has claimed her promotion as Chief Education Officer w.e.f. 11 -2 -1987 and her appointment as Chief Education Officer in higher grade w.e.f 8 -3 -1993 is illegal. That by virtue of Annexure Dâ„¢ (Government Order No. 146 -Edu of 1993) the petitioner has been adjusted against the post of Joint Director School Education and they have thus down -graded the post to the level of Chief Education Officer which is not permissible under law. Respondent No.1 is not competent to down grade the post of Joint Director to that of Chief Education Officer. The working of Joint Director School Education carries higher responsibilities than that of a Chief Education Officer and under law she is entitled to the charge allowance from the date she was posted as such (May, 1991 onwards). The impugned order is illegal and militates against the import of Art. 87 of the J&K Civil Services Regulations. The functions of Joint Director has been defined and they are separate from the functions of Chief Education Officer. She has been allowed to work against a clear vacancy with added responsibilities. She has sought the issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing Government Order No. 146 -Edu, of 1993 so far as it down grades the post of Joint Director to that of Chief Education Officer. Other reliefs sought for have been stated above.