S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THE appellants -Andhra Dramatic and Literary Society (A.D.L. School for short) and its Managing Committee being not satisfied with the judgment and order dated 28.8.1997 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 4239 of 1997 (R), has challenged the same by the impugned judgment, learned single Judge held the appointment of respondent -Mrs. P. Naidu as Headmistress of the A.D.L. School illegal having made contrary to the settled principles of law and set aside her appointment.
(2.) ACCORDING to writ petitioner -respondent, Mrs. P. Ratna she held qualification of M.A., B.Ed, since 1983 and was working as Assistant Teacher in the LA. trained scale since 15th March, 1983, as was approved by the District Superintendent of Education, Jamshedpur (D.S.E. for short). She being eligible applied for appointment to the post of Headmaster (Headmistress) published by A.D.L. School on 22.12.1992 in newspaper UDTT VANI. The respondent. Mrs. P. Naidu is a matric trained teacher and appointed on 24.1.1993. Though she was in matric trained scale, applied in pursuance of advertisement aforesaid and appointed as Headmaster of A.D.L. School in pursuance of decision of the Managing Committee dated 28.2.1993, as approved by the D.S.E. Jamshedpur vide Memo No. 3390 -3418 dated 7.6.1993. The writ petitioner -respondent, Mrs. P. Ratna took plea that the selection of contesting respondent, Mrs. P. Naidu was illegal and unconstitutional as the selection was made mainly giving weightage on the marks obtained in the interview. Learned single Judge taking into consideration the fact that the contesting respondent, Mrs. P. Naidu obtained 63 marks in written test and 113 marks in the interview whereas Mrs. P. Ratna (writ petitioner) got 34 marks in written test and 73 marks in the interview, held the appointment illegal and unconstitutional, giving reference of certain decisions of the Supreme Court such as Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in (1991) 1 SCC 662, Vikram Slngh and Anr. v. Subordinate Service Selection Board, Haryana and Ors., reported in (1991) 1 SCC 686, Ashok Alla Somanna Gowela and Anr. v. State of Karnataka, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 28 and Madhuka Bakru Pin -gal v. Sri Rajendra D. Gaiwad and Ors., reported in (1996) 1 UJ (SC) 16. The appellants have justified the marking. According to them, the Managing Committee decided to allow 125 marks in the written test and 30 marks in the interview. There were five members in the selection committee, who individually marked out of 30 marks. They were added together instead of working out the average.
(3.) COUNSEL for the writ petitioner -respondent, Mrs. P. Ratna while took similar plea that the selection has been made on the basis of excess mark in the interview, also took plea that Mrs. P. Naidu was not qualified being a teacher in the matric trained scale of pay and not in the B.A. trained scale. He placed reliance on advertisement dated 22.12.1992. However, if the aforesaid submission of writ petitioner, Mrs. P. Ratna that only the teachers in the graduate trained scale are eligible is accepted, the writ petitioner, Mrs. P. Ratna being a teacher in the I.A. trained scale, is to be held not eligible and the writ petition being not maintainable at her instance to be dismissed.;