Decided on June 04,2003

P.L.LILLY Appellant


- (1.) The point to be decided in this O.P. is whether the right under R.51A will be lost to the petitioner if she fails to object in time to a list of 51A claimants published by the Manager in which her seniority is wrongly shown. The brief facts of the case are the following : -
(2.) The petitioner and the 6th respondent were R.51A claimants for appointment to the post of Needle Work Teacher in the Schools managed by the 5th respondent The petitioner's first spell of approved service was from 09-09-1980 to 05-12-1980 as evident from Ext. P1. The 6th respondent's first approved spell of service was from 09-08-1982 to 30-10-1982. Thereafter, the petitioner, the 6th respondent and another teacher were appointed on 19-01-1989 as Sewing Teachers in different schools. Those appointments were not approved for want of sanctioned posts. It appears, result of the efforts made by the 6th respondent and the Manager, one post of Sewing Teacher was sanctioned. The 6th respondent was accommodated in it instead of the petitioner who is the senior claimant. Thereafter, when a regular vacancy arose, the 6th respondent was appointed in the said vacancy on 04-06-1990 and she is continuing in it even today, it is submitted.
(3.) Earlier, the Manager had published Ext. P6 list of 51A claimants, in which the petitioner was shown as junior to the 6th respondent. Again, another list Ext. P9 was published in which the petitioner's name was not included at all. On coming to know of Ext. P9, the petitioner moved the District Educational Officer. The said officer, by Ext. P10, directed the petitioner to move the higher authorities as the Management involved was a Corporate Educational Agency having a number of schools which were located outside his jurisdiction. So, the petitioner moved the Director of Public Instructions by filing a representation highlighting her grievances. The said representation was allowed by the Director by Ext. P11 dated 13-12-2001 upholding the superior claim of the petitioner. The manager and the 6th respondent moved the Government in revision and the Government allowed the revision by Ext. P12 order dated 24-10-2002. The reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner was the delay from her part to move for establishing her right. The petitioner challenges Ext. P12 on several grounds. The main ground of attack is that it has been issued in violation of the mandatory provisions of R.51A. The finding of the Government that the petitioner has abandoned the job when her appointment was not approved by the Educational Officer is denied by her. In fact, she was relieved by the Manager when her appointment was not approved, it is submitted relying on the original of that relieving order which was handed over to the Court at the time of hearing.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.