- (1.) THE Original Application in O.A.No.1212 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") is now Writ Petition in W.P.No.14209 of 2007 before this Court.
(2.) HEARD Mr.G.Elanchezhian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Muthu Kumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner joined in the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department as a Typist on 10.04.1987. She possessed B.A., B.Ed., qualification. She was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher based on G.O.Ms.No,63, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 01.04.1997 by the second respondent. However, after seven years, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 19.03.2003 cancelling the appointment and reverting the petitioner as Typist. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.1212 of 2003 (W.P.No.14209 of 2007) to quash the aforesaid order dated 19.03.2003 of the second respondent and for a consequential direction to continue her as a Secondary Grade Teacher by regularising the service with all consequential benefits.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed based on the order of the first respondent dated 11.07.2002. However the said order was not furnished to the petitioner. THE petitioner was not heard before passing the order dated 11.07.2002 / 19.03.2003. THE learned counsel submits that therefore the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. In this regard, the petitioner states that when she was posted as Secondary Grade Teacher from the post of Typist, she was posted to higher scale of pay and received higher benefits. Hence, when she was deprived of certain benefits including the status, she should have been heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that had she been heard before passing the adverse order, she could have pointed out that her appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher was in terms of G.O.Ms.No,63, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 01.04.1997. The learned counsel further submits the appointment was made pursuant to the recommendations of the second respondent in his letter dated 18.08.1997 to the first respondent and it is also further stated that in the order appointing the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher, it is made clear that the appointment was made as per G.O.Ms.No,63, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 01.04.1997.;