WP/20091/1998 of Smt.Qamar Sultana, Vs Regional Director of Education, on 28 December 2006

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher inthe third respondent school with effect from 18-06-1970. She obtained B.Ed. degreein the year 1979, M.A. in english and social studies in 1990, and also passedaccount test for the post of Head Master in 1992. Further, she also passed M.A.literature in English. It is also asserted that she was teaching the high school sectionof the school i.e., 8[th], 9[th], and 10[th] classes all through right from 1982 onwards. Theservices of the petitioner were also appreciated by the third respondent and issuedcertificates of appreciation time and again. When one Smt.Sakina Banu retired on01-04-1991, she claimed her promotion to the post of Senior Assistant inHumanities. However, the third respondent arbitrarily and illegally with ulteriormotive promoted the respondent No.4 denying the promotion to the petitioner. Thesaid respondent No.4 was junior to the petitioner and appointed only in the year1972. The said promotion was made without approval of the Government and alsowhile preparing the seniority list the petitioner objected for the promotion of therespondent No.4. Her proposal was also, however, sent to the authorities concernedafter retirement of one A.Venkat Narayan (English, Social Studies) on 24-04-1992.But, no action was taken against the said proposal sent by the management, thoughfive years elapsed. When she approached the D.E.Os. office, it was said that therecords were burnt in a fire accident. Therefore, the petitioner made representationsagain and ultimately the impugned proceedings dated 16-01-1998 were passed.While the matter stood thus, the fourth respondent Smt.Amboja Rajagopal tookvoluntary retirement on 31-01-1999 and another school teacher Smt. AnnapurnaDevi, who was shown above the petitioner in the seniority list, also took voluntaryretirement somewhere in the month of February 2000. In spite of that, the case of thepetitioner was not considered for being promoted to the post of School Assistant(Social Studies), though several representations are filed by her. Now, it is statedthat ultimately the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired on 31-05-2003 without being promoted to the post of School Assistant as per her eligibility.

Hence, this Writ Petition.

Hence, this Writ Petition.

2. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the Government on behalf of the firstand second respondent and on behalf of the third respondent a separate counter-affidavit has been filed, denying the allegations made by the petitioner and soughtdismissal of the writ petition. However, it is asserted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2that Smt.Annapurna SGT, M.A., M.Ed. (Hum.) and petitioner in W.P.No.27373 of1997 is senior to Qamar Sultana, SGT M.A., M.Ed., (Hum.). As such, the promotionof Smt.Annapurna, SGT, (Hum.) had to be considered by the respondent No.3 to theschool Assistant (Hum.) before the petitioner-Smt.Qamer Sultana and other juniorsas per the Hon’ble Court orders issued earlier. It is also further asserted thatSmt.Rama Devi, SGT, having qualifications of B.Sc. (MPC), and B.Ed. is eligible forpromotion to the post of School Assistant (Mathematics) in the existing post and thesame has to be considered by the respondent No.3. The petitioner is not eligible forpromotion to the post of School Assistant (Mathematics) as per the seniority andsubject need/eligibility at that juncture. It is further explained in the counter thatwhenever a vacancy of senior assistant (regular) arises, the same has to be filled upwith upgraded School Assistants and already existing should be earmarked for thesubjects viz., first post in every three posts of School Assistant should be earmarkedfor graduate in Mathematics and Physcial Science, second post for natural sciencegraduates and third post should be earmarked for graduate in humanities. As per thecadre strength posts admitted in grant-in-aid in the third respondent school, there arefive School Assistant teachers working i.e., School Assistant (Maths) –1, SchoolAssistant (Science) –2, School Assistant (Hum.) –2 one was vacant i.e., SchoolAssistant (Maths.). As per the seniority of SGT and subject need as stated above,Smt.B.Rama Devi, SGT having qualifications of B.Sc. (MPC), B.Ed. is eligible forexisting School Assistant (Mathematics) as per rules in force. The petitioner wasappointed as SGT on 18-06-1970 and passed B.Ed. in May 1979, whereas thefourth respondent was upgraded to the post of School Assistant on 01-01-1976,since she acquired B.A., B.Ed., prior to 01-06-1977. Later she was absorbed inregular post of School Assistant with effect from 01-04-1991, in the vacancy arosedue to retirement of Smt.Sakina Banu. Therefore, the petitioner was not consideredby the respondent No.3 for upgraded School Assistant post.

3 . Almost the same stand was taken by the respondent No.3-management in itscounter-affidavit.

4. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by thelearned counsel on either side and also gone through the material made availableon record. As seen from the above, admittedly, the petitioner obtained B.Ed. only in1979, whereas fourth respondent passed B.Ed. even before 01-06-1977 that is thereason why the fourth respondent though she was junior in service, adjusted in theupgraded post and thus became senior to the petitioner. Even Smt.Annuapurna Deviwas senior in the cadre of S.G.B.T. Be that as it may, Ms.Amboja Rajagopal-thefourth respondent herein admittedly retired from service on 31-01-1999 and even ifassuming that Smt.Annapurna Devi was promoted for the said vacancy,Smt.Annapurna Devi also took voluntary retirement in February 2000. At last, therewas no hurdle in the way of third respondent in considering promotion of thepetitioner for the post of Senior Assistant after February 2000. Of course, it isasserted in the counter filed by the respondents 1 and 2 that the first vacancy causedwould go to the Science graduate and second vacancy would go to the graduate inNatural Sciences and the third vacancy would go to the graduate in Humanities. It isfor the third respondent to look into this and pass appropriate orders. This exerciseought to have been done by the third respondent as soon as Smt.Annapurna Devioffered voluntary retirement in the month of February 2000, but such an exercisewas not done by the third respondent. If any exercise has been done to fill up thevacancy caused due to voluntary retirement of Smt.Annapurna Devi in the month ofFeburary, 2000, probably the case of the petitioner would have been considered.

5. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the case of thepetitioner against the vacancy caused due to the voluntary retirement taken by Ms.Amboja Rajagopal and consequently voluntary retirement taken by Smt.AnnapurnaDevi while she was in the cadre of School Assistant in the SGBT as to the feasibilityof considering the case of the petitioner for being promoted to the post of SchoolAssistant in Humanities, as per the vacancy position at that juncture, as per theprocedure invoked and pass appropriate orders as per law and thereafter decide thepension etc., of the petitioner, since she has retired from service with effect from 31-05-2003, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder.

6. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

_____________

C.V.RAMULU, J.

Dated 16-06-2005.

SKMR

..... REGISTRAR

To

1 Regional Director of Education, Hyderabad Region, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2 District Educational Officer, Twin Cities, Exhibition Ground, Nampally, Hyd.

3 Secretary, Mufid-ul-Anam, Boy's High School, Eithbar Chowk, Old City, Hyderabad.

4 2 CCs to G.P. for School Education, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).

2 CD copies