U ARULMOZHI Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed to quash the order passed in T. A. No. 240 of 1999 dated 15. 3. 2004 and to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

(3.) THE present petitioner's father, namely, Thiru. Ulaganathan, died on 31. 7. 1990 in harness, while he was serving as a Teacher. Subsequently, the present petitioner, who is the daughter of the deceased, filed an application on 31. 6. 1994 f ent on compassionate ground. Admittedly, at that stage, she was unmarried and her three sisters and brother were minors and due to certain reasons, her mother, the widow of the deceased, was not in a position to seek appointment. In view of the indigen t circumstances of the family members, the application was considered favourably and the petitioner was appointed on 15. 9. 1998. However, in the meantime, the petitioner had got married on 16. 5. 1995. It is specifically averred in the affidavit that the petitioner married her maternal uncle with the understanding that such person would have no objection to the petitioner maintaining the family members of her deceased father from out of the salary of such employment. After about six months of such empl oyment, without holding any enquiry, service of the petitioner was terminated on 15. 3. 1999. Against such order of termination, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 8429 of 1999, wherein a stay order had been passed on 5. 5. 1999. Pursuant to such stay order, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 1. 10. 2001. Subsequently, the writ petition itself was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and numbered as T. A. No. 240 of 1999, which was dismissed on merit on 15. 3. 2004. Based on the dismissal or der, the petitioner was ousted from service on 25. 6. 2004 and the present writ petition is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 15. 3. 2004. Even though an order of stay had been passed on 5. 7. 2004 and subsequently made absolute on 7. 1. 2005, by the order passed in Review Appln. No. 18 of 2005, filed by the present Respondents 1 to 3, the stay order had been recalled. Undisputedly, after 25. 6. 2004, the petitioner was not in service.