Allowed

Judith Manjula, v. University of Hyd

Telangana HC3 Nov 2010WP/15160/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, empanelled as a K.G Primary Teacher under 2006 notifications, denied appointment despite vacancies. Court directed 1st respondent to appoint her permanently based on prior notifications, deploving arbitrary criteria changes and failure to act on interim directions.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's case for appointment to Post of Primary Trained Teacher in K.G on permanent basis pursuant to Notification No.1 of 2006 or No.2 of 2006.

Judith Manjula, Vs University of Hyd — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶2

W.P. Nos. 15160 of 2007 and 14558 of 2008

¶3

and C.C. No. 78 of 2008

¶4

COMMON ORDER:

¶5

Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of, along with the contempt case, by this common order.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioner that she had passed intermediate with 47% marks and completed Pre-Primary Teacher Training Course and, therefore, eligible for appointment as Kinder Garten (K.G) Primary Teacher. She belong to BC-C community and had working experience as Primary Teacher (K.G) in St. Paul’s High School, Hyderguda and other reputed high schools. Pursuant to the recruitment Notification No. 1 of 2006 issued by 1^st respondentUniversity dated 23.2.2006, she had applied for the post of Primary Trained Teacher in K.G. and participated in written test and interview. Though she secured 58 marks out of 100, she was not considered for recruitment to the said post. While so, 1^st respondent issued another recruitment Notification No. 2 of 2006, for the said post and she had applied for the same and was allowed to appear for written test and interview. On the basis of her performance, she was empanelled for a period of one year. The reason for keeping her in the panel was that if any vacancy arises within one year, she could be appointed. The first person in the panel, namely, T.R. Jayasree produced fake educational certificates, therefore, she was not continued. Another vacancy arose consequent on retirement of M. Neeraja Reddy on medical grounds. Despite availability of the said vacancies, she was not issued with any appointment order. Therefore, she filed W.P. No. 7836 of 2007 seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint her in the resultant vacancy.

¶7

However, on the assurance made by the respondents that her case would be considered if the said writ petition is withdrawn, she withdrew the said writ petition. But, the respondents failed to consider her case, which forced her to file W.P.No. 15160 of 2007 and this Court, in WPMP No. 19103 of 2007 in W.P.No. 15160 of 2007, issued a direction to 1^st respondent to consider appointment of petitioner as Primary Trained Teacher in Kinder Garten in 1^st respondentUniversity, if her name was empanelled in the interviews held on 16.11.2006 and 17.11.2006 and if the empanelled list was valid as on the date of filing writ petition. The respondents did not consider her case as per the said interim orders, constraining her to file C.C. No. 78 of 2008. However, the case of petitioner was rejected by letter dated 29.1.2008 of 2^nd respondent. Therefore, she filed W.P. No. 14558 of 2008.

¶8

It is the further case of the petitioner that no distinction is made between primary teachers to teach the primary classes i.e. 1 to 5 and the K.G. Primary Teachers to teach K.G. to 3 classes. In Notification No. 1 of 2006, the eligibility for K.G. Primary Teacher was only ‘pass in Intermediate’ with 45% of marks in Intermediate while in Notification No. 2 of 2006, it was prescribed as ‘pass in Intermediate’ with 50% marks in Intermediate’. However, when recruitment Notification No.1 of 2007 was issued, the eligibility was again ‘Intermediate with 45% of marks in Intermediate for reserved category’. Since she was empanelled pursuant to Notification No. 2 of 2006, she did not apply for recruitment pursuant to Notification No. 1 of 2007. Had she been ineligible to apply as against recruitment Notification No. 2 of 2006, respondents ought not to have invited her to the written test, interview and empanelled her thereafter. The empanelment of the petitioner pursuant to Notification No. 2 of 2006 is still subsisting and not rescinded so far. However, after contempt case, respondents have

¶9

taken a stand that since she did not secure 50% in Intermediate, her empanelment pursuant to Notification No. 2 of 2006 cannot secure her order of appointment as K.G. Primary Teacher. This stand is taken by respondents only to defeat her legitimate right for appointment pursuant to empanelment in respect of notification No. 2 of 2006.

¶10

The grievance of the petitioner is that now she is disabled for applying for recruitment against the present notification No. 1 of 2008 since she had secured only 47% of marks in Intermediate as against prescribed marks of 50% and age barred. If the respondents are permitted to proceed with the present recruitment notification and fill up the existing vacancies of K.G. Primary Teacher with the eligibility criteria as laid down now, she would suffer irreparable loss. There is no statutory rule in the establishment of 1^st respondent that the basic eligibility for appointment to K.G. Primary Teacher is ‘pass in Intermediate with 50% marks’. In fact, in respect of notifications 1 of 2006 and 1 of 2007, no such eligibility was prescribed and the only requisite qualification was ‘pass in Intermediate with 45% marks’. Such an eligibility criteria being non-statutory, by reason of selection and empanelment of the petitioner, respondents are estopped from taking such a stand, particularly, without canceling or upsetting the empanelment pursuant to notification No. 2 of 2006.

¶11

Respondents have filed detailed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is further stated that the School Managing Committee, in its meeting held on 30.6.2007, observed that even the empanelled candidate i.e. petitioner was not qualified to hold the post as she lacked the essential qualification of Intermediate with 50% marks and, therefore, the Committee recommended for re-advertising the post. Petitioner secured only 47% in her Intermediate as against requirement of 50% as stipulated in the Notification. Pursuant to the interim order dated 22.11.2007 in WPMP

¶12

No. 19103 of 2007 in W.P. No. 15160 of 2007 directing the School Managing Committee to consider appointment of the petitioner as Primary Trained Teacher in Kindergarten in respondent-University, the Committee met on 10.12.2007 to consider the case of the petitioner and after examining the case of the petitioner, it had decided to uphold its earlier decision taken on 30.6.2007 and unanimously resolved that nobody should be considered for appointment without fulfilling the eligibility requirement.

¶13

As far as the allegation that no recruitments were made under Notification No. 1 of 2006 dated 23.2.2006, the Selection Committee after interviewing the candidates under the said notification, did not find anybody suitable and therefore recommended for re-advertising the said post. Petitioner did not challenge the same and, without any protest, applied under notification No. 2 of 2006 and, as such, she cannot raise any dispute in respect of cancellation of earlier notification. Bye Law No. 24 (ii) stipulates that the age, educational and other qualifications for appointments to the posts and norms and criteria of recruitment shall be as prescribed by the School Management Committee from time to time. The notifications referred to above are issued only after the Committee has approved the same. Under Notification No.1 of 2007, temporary teachers were sought to be recruited on contract basis. Therefore, the allegation that had the petitioner been ineligible she would not have been invited under notification No. 2 of 2006 cannot be countenanced. The allegation that the petitioner’s empanelment pursuant to notification No. 2 of 2006 is still subsisting and has not been rescinded is misconceived and untrue. By virtue of the decision of the Committee not to appoint the petitioner and to re-advertise the post, the empanelment loses its significance and stands cancelled. The non-consideration of the case of petitioner is for a valid reason and she has no right over the said post, more so, in view of the fact that she is not eligible for the post in

¶14

question.

¶15

Further, the allegation that during pendency of W.P. No. 15160 of 2007 and C.C. No. 78 of 2008 respondents have issued notification No. 1 of 2008 to defeat the rights of the petitioner is also misconceived. Though the petitioner sought for interim relief of not filling up one post of K.G. Primary Teacher pursuant to notification No. 1 of 2008, the same was not granted by this Court. Thereafter, permanent posts advertised under the said notification are filled up. As on date, there are no permanent vacancies available in the school. Even the selected candidates to the permanent posts are not made parties to the present writ petition. At any rate, she was only empanelled and was never offered appointment under the said notification at any point of time. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

Heard both sides.

¶17

This is an unfortunate case where the petitioner, a talented lady and who was fully qualified for being appointed as a Kinder Garten (K.G) Primary Teacher, belonging to BC-C community, had been denied appointment.

¶18

Pursuant to Notification No. 1 of 2006 dated 23.2.2006, she applied for the post of Primary Trained Teacher and participated in the written test and interview. She secured 58 marks i.e. the highest marks among the candidates appeared for the interview. However, the said selection was not given effect to and another Notification i.e. Notification No.2 of 2006 was issued for filling up same post. Petitioner applied and she was empanelled as the person who obtained second highest marks. The person empanelled with highest marks, namely, T.R. Jayasree, produced fake educational certificates and could not produce the originals in spite of giving time. Therefore, she was not continued. Another vacancy also arose consequent on retirement of

¶19

one M. Neeraja Reddy, on medical grounds. Thus, two vacancies arose after empanelment of petitioner pursuant to Notification No. 2 of 2006. However, she was not given appointment order. Therefore, she filed W.P. No. 7836 of 2007. She withdrew the said writ petition since respondent-University addressed a letter to her on 26.6.2007 informing that her case will be examined and considered only if the case is withdrawn, since the school management committee cannot take up a case that is sub judice. Therefore, she had withdrawn W.P. No. 7836 of 2007. But, respondents failed to consider her case and, therefore, petitioner filed W.P.No. 15160 of 2007. In WPMP No. 19103 of 2007 in W.P. No. 15160 of 2007, this Court directed 1^st respondent to consider appointment of petitioner as Primary Trained Teacher in Kinder Garten in 1^st respondent – University, if her name was empanelled in the interviews held on 16.11.2006 and 17.11.2006. When the said order was not implemented, she filed present C.C. No. 78 of 2009. However, the case of petitioner was rejected by letter dated 29.1.2008 of 2^nd respondent. Therefore, she filed W.P. No. 14558 of 2008.

¶20

The criteria laid for Notification No. 1 of 2006 was pass in Intermediate with 45% marks, whereas, in Notification No. 2 of 2006, the criteria fixed was pass in Intermediate with 50% marks. When no eligible candidates were available, again in Notification No.1 of 2007, the requisite qualification fixed was pass in Intermediate with 45% marks. However, petitioner did not apply for recruitment in terms of the said notification since her claim for appointment is subject matter of pending cases before this Court. Further, as the ill-luck would have, petitioner became ineligible for recruitment pursuant to Notification No. 1 of 2008 since she crossed the upper age limit and the criteria was again fixed as ‘pass in Intermediate with 50% marks’.

¶21

As seen from the above, respondents have been altering the criteria from one recruitment to other recruitment. Further, it

¶22

is very clear that though petitioner became eligible for being appointed as Primary Teacher as she was selected pursuant to Notification No.1 of 2006, she was denied appointment without any just reason and when she filed W.P. No. 7836 of 2007, the Management, by luring her with the letter dated 26.6.2007, made her to withdraw the said writ petition. After withdrawal of W.P. 7836 of 2007, respondents did not take any action and, therefore, she was constrained to file W.P. No. 15160 of 2007 and this Court, by an order dated 22.11.2007 in WPMP No. 19103 of 2007 in W.P. No. 15160 of 2007, directed 1^st respondent to consider appointment of petitioner as Primary Trained Teacher in Kinder Garten in 1^st respondent – University school, if her name was empanelled in the interviews held on 16.11.2006 and 17.11.2006. It appears, thereafter, petitioner received a communication dated 29.1.2008 intimating as to the decision taken by the management, which is as follows:

¶23

“After going through the orders of the A.P. High Court in respect of Smt. Judith Manjula, the School Managing Committee with its full strength of Members has discussed the directives of the Honourable High Court. It was unanimously resolved to uphold the earlier decision of the SMC taken on 30.6.2007. The Committee unanimously felt that nobody should be considered for appointment without fulfilling required qualifications as notified in the advertisement. The issue of Judith Manjula also came up precisely because of the violation of basic rule of fulfilling the requirement. Regarding considering her case against the vacancy of Mrs. M. Neeraja Reddy it could not be taken up due to procedural delay in finalizing the case of voluntary retirement of Smt. M. Neeraja Reddy on medical grounds as per Central Government rules. However, the final order to Smt. M. Neeraja Reddy was issued only on 5.11.2007. Further the Committee unanimously resolved that the permanent post of Ms. Neeraja Reddy must be advertised so that due opportunity will be given to all the qualified candidates as per

¶24

the advertisement”.

¶25

But, the said decision was not on the promise made by the respondents pursuant to withdrawal of W.P. No. 7836 of 2007. In the counter filed in W.P. No. 14558 of 2008, respondents have dubiously tried to give an impression that the petitioner withdrew W.P. No. 7836 of 2007 and pursuant to Notification No. 2 of 2006, her case was considered as per directions in W.P. No. 15160 of 2007 and rejected. In fact, pursuant to the promise made by respondents to consider the case of petitioner, she withdrew W.P. No. 7836 of 2007, but no orders as promised were passed. This itself shows that respondents have made the petitioner to believe that her case will be considered as soon as the writ petition filed by her is withdrawn. Since no orders were passed, petitioner had to file W.P. No. 15160 of 2007 wherein she has sought for a Mandamus for not considering and appointing her to the post of Primary Trained Teacher in Kinder Garten in the Campus School of 1^st respondent – University as per the recruitment notification No.1 of 2006 and recruitment notification No. 2 of 2006. Petitioner was, in fact, selected under both the Notifications but she was denied employment.

¶26

This is how the matter was dealt with by respondents. It is not known as to why the case of petitioner was not considered pursuant to Notification No. 1 of 2006. Of course, pursuant to Notification No. 2 of 2006, though petitioner was empanelled, she was informed that her case will be considered if any vacancy arises. Admittedly, the vacancy was not filled up as the first ranker did not produce original certificates and no plausible reasons are forthcoming for not considering the case of the petitioner in such vacancy. Further, respondents themselves have altered the criteria for appointment as Primary Teacher by fixing different percentage of marks in different notifications, to deny appointment to the petitioner. Why she was

¶27

denied employment – whether it is on the basis of caste, creed, colour or religion – is not known, though she was fully qualified and entitled to hold the post. The practice adopted by the respondents in denying employment to the petitioner is deprecated.

¶28

Under those peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for being appointed to the post of Primary Trained Teacher in Kinder Garten in the Campus School of 1^st respondent – University as per Recruitment Notification No.1 of 2006 or Notification No. 2 of 2006.

¶29

For all the above reasons, both the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for appointment to the post of Primary Trained Teacher in Kinder Garten in the Campus School of 1^st respondent – University keeping in view the findings recorded above, on permanent basis, pursuant to Notification No. 1 of 2006 or Notification No. 2 of 2006 or in any other vacancy. Till she is appointed permanently, she shall be continued on the same terms and conditions existing as of now.

¶30

C.C. No. 78 of 2008:

¶31

In view of the final orders passed in W.P.Nos. 15160 of 2007 and 14558 of 2008, a lenient view is taken in the matter and the contempt case is closed accordingly.

¶32

JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU.

¶33

Date: 03-11-2010. MVB.

Judith Manjula, v. University of Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Judith Manjula, v. University of Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Shaheena, , Shanti Vs The Diputy Superintendent of Police, Narasaraopet

Katta Venkata Ramappa Vs The Govt., of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Smt Y. Aruna Vs The Superintendent of Police

K.Ramesh Kumar Reddy Vs The Andhra P ra desh Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers

Judith Manjula Vs a.Murali

K. Ramesh Kumar Reddy Vs Sri v. Venkata Ramaiah, I.F.S.