AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard on the question of admission.
By the instant petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and validity of the orders dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure-P-12) and 05.10.2019 (Annexure-P-15) and sought for quashment of the same.
The basic question involved in this case is whether the charge of the Hostel Warden of the school, namely, Kasturba Gandhi Girls School, can be assigned to the petitioner.
From a bare perusal of the orders impugned it is clear that the selection of the Hostel Warden is going on and the petitioner is also one of the candidates in the said selection process, has made an application for appointment on the post of Hostel Warden. However, the charge of the said post has not been assigned to the petitioner and she was not allowed to continue to hold the said charge. The Collector in its order, which is impugned in this petition, has observed that as per the policy, a Hostel Warden which has completed three years on the said post cannot be assigned the said charge for further three years. It is also observed by the Collector in its order that the petitioner has been holding the charge of Hostel Warden of the said school continuously for last seven years, therefore, it is not appropriate to allow her to continue because the policy very categorically provided that once three years completed by a candidate, he/she should not be allowed to continue for next three years.
Undisputedly, the petitioner has admitted this fact that since last seven years, she is holding the charge and no other persons/lady accepted the charge of the post. The order itself provides the condition that if in case, any lady teacher is not available, then in such a situation, the teacher who gives consent, would be allowed to hold the said charge. But the said Clause has not been interpreted by the petitioner in a proper manner. It deals with the situation when selection is made and in case no lady teacher is available, then the selection is made by inviting applications through advertisement. The Collector has not opined in its order that nobody else has not given any consent, therefore, it is the discretion of the Collector to decide as to whether the charge of the Hostel Warden can be assigned to the petitioner or to some other lady teacher.
It is not a case, in which, statutory right of the petitioner is being violated, therefore, interference in the orders impugned is not warranted.
This Court on earlier occasion in W.P. No.16709/2018 (Dr. RamManoj) Dwivdecidedi onVs.26The.09. 2019,State afterofMadhyaconsideringPadeshtheandlawothersdown by the Supreme Court followed by the Division Bench, has held that holding additional charge is not the right of any employee.
As such, I do not find any substance in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to participate in the selection process, if any is conducted for the post of Hostel Warden. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion in respect of the eligibility of the petitioner. If the petitioner is otherwise found eligible to take part, she shall be allowed to participate in the same.