A RUCKMANI Vs. CORRESPONDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein challenges the common order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.11257 of 1995, 13099 of 1995, 15441 of 1995 and 3818 of 1997. Out of these petitions, we are concerned only with the Writ Petition No.15441 of 1995 which was filed by the present appellant/petitioner. In her petition, she had challenged the order passed by the Joint Director, dated 31.7.1995 whereby her claim for promotion as a Headmistress in the Middle School was turned down. We are not really concerned with the earlier history of litigation, because the Writ Appeal can be disposed of only on the basis of the contentions raised by the appellant and the facts relating to her.

(2.) It is an admitted position that the appellant was working as Secondary Grade Assistant Teacher right from 1964 in the concerned school. A vacancy for the Middle School Headmaster/Headmistress arose in the month of June, 1993 for that post. However, later on, i.e., in February, 1994, the qualifications required for the post were upgraded, in the sense that hitherto though a non-B.Ed., candidate could be appointed as a Headmaster or Headmistress of the school, after February, 1994, it was only a person who was having the qualification of B.Ed. after graduation could be appointed as Headmistress or Headmaster, as the case may be. The appellant was not appointed though she staked her claim for that post which was filled up on 2.2.1994; instead, one outsider came to be appointed and this was challenged by way of appeal which was filed on 12.2.1994. The appeal was rejected on 25.10.1994. Therefore, a Writ Petition came to be filed wherein this Court directed the appellant to file a second appeal, perhaps to the Joint Director which accordingly was filed. That appeal has also been dismissed by the Joint Director, taking the view that on the date when the post was filled up, the appellant did not have the necessary qualifications, as she was not B.Ed., degree holder and that she acquired that qualification for the first time in March 1994 only.

(3.) The learned Single Judge also took the same view and pointed out that on the date when the vacancy was filled up on 2.2.1994, the appellant was not duly qualified for occupying the post of Headmistress. The learned Single Judge took into account the situation that the appellant acquired the qualification of B.Ed., only in the year 1994 in the month of March and as such, on the date when the post was filled up, she was not qualified.