S.Pravalika, v. The District Education Officer

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.43125 of 2017 ORDER:

The petitioner states that she passed intermediate Special D.Ed., and is a local candidate of Nirmal District. When the Project Officer, SSA Adilabad, issued a notification for appointment of Inclusive Education Resource Person (IERP), the petitioner appeared for the same. She was selected and an order of appointment was issued on 21.04.2015. The appointment was on contract basis on a monthly remuneration of Rs.14,000/-. Her services were reengaged by proceedings dated 09.06.2015 for the period from 10.06.2015 to 23.04.2016. While continuing as such, she applied for leave in the month of December, 2015, and the same was sanctioned. Thereafter, she did not report for duty and a complaint was received against her.

On the basis of the said complaint an enquiry was conducted by the District Inclusive Education Co-ordinator, Adilabad, and in the enquiry it was proved that the complaint has no basis. She submitted a representation on 13.02.2017 seeking reinstatement and when the third respondent issued an order on 22.02.2017 directing the first respondent to terminate the services of the petitioner, the present Writ Petition is filed. As stated above, the initial appointment of the petitioner was for the academic year 2014-2015 and the contractual services came to an end on 23.04.2015. The same was extended by proceedings dated 09.06.

10.06.2015 to 23.04.2016. It appears that the petitioner went on leave in the month of December and she sought two months extension of leave on medical grounds. In respect of contractual employment though there is no provision for grant of leave, she was permitted to go on leave for two months. A show cause notice was issued to her on 08.12.2015 for her irregular attendance, obtaining leave without prior permission and for non maintenance of records and registers. She admitted her lapse, but however, she sought reinstatement. As per the renewed contract, the period came to an end on 23.04.2016. However, on her representation when an enquiry was conducted and an order was passed on 22.02.2017 terminating her services, the petitioner approached this Court after ten months. This clearly shows her lack of interest. Even otherwise also, when the contract came to an end on 23.04.2016, this Court cannot grant any relief in her favour.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 19.12.2017 vs