WP/27801/2005 of Kum.Gajjela Shoba, Vs The Principal , A.P.R.School (Girls), on 30 December 2005

ORDER:

The first respondent issued a notification, dated 18.06.2004 inviting applications forselecting the candidates for appointing them as Multipurpose Workers (M.P.Ws.), oncontract basis. The petitioners responded to the same. Through the separateproceedings, dated 12.02.2005, the first respondent selected and appointed thepetitioners as M.P.Ws., on contract basis. It is stated that the roster has beenfollowed in the matter of appointing the petitioners. Initially, the contract was for aperiod of one year and thereafter, it was extended for the subsequent academicyear.

The second respondent issued proceedings, dated 21.07.2005, stating that duringthe course of enquiry conducted by the Academic Guiding Officer, it was found thatthe appointment of the petitioners was made in violation of roster system. He,accordingly, directed the first respondent to discharge the petitioners. The same ischallenged in this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel forthe respondents.

In the order of appointment, dated 12.02.2005, the first respondent has clearly statedthat the vacancies were identified with reference to the roster, and the social statusof the petitioners, namely scheduled castes and BC-‘A’, were clearly mentionedtherein. It is not known as to on what basis the second respondent came to theconclusion that the roster was not followed. Even assuming that such a contingencyexisted, he ought to have put the petitioners on notice before discharging them.

On this short ground, the impugned order is set aside. It is left open to therespondents to pass appropriate orders, after issuing notice to the petitioners.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________

30.12.2005

kdl