Srinivasa Reddy Voladri vs Union of India and Others

Applications were invited for the post of teacher in the Telugu medium lower primary school run by the North-east Frontier Railway in Guwahati. The lower primary section is from class I to IV while class V onward upper primary. Petitioner is a higher secondary pass-out and has a junior basic training. He applied for the post. Private respondent is a BScBEd. He also applied for the post. Private respondent is appointed. Petitioner challenged the appointment before the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the training skills for lower primary classes would be totally different and the higher qualification of BScBEd would be totally incongruent and will not have the necessary training skills to teach the lower primary classes.

The Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner. A writ petition [WP(C) 3248/2008] was filed before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition partly and directed payment of Rs. 50,000/- compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost. The petitioner filed a SLP before the Supreme Court. The SLP was disposed of with the following observation.

"Mr. A.K. Ganguly, learned senior counsel has submitted that what was argued before the High Court was that after abolition of the school where the appointments have been made, the said respondent stood transferred to other school and is still continuing in service and the abolition of the post itself is incorrect. We do not find such averment in the judgment impugned before us. In such a fact situation, learned senior Counsel prays for permission to withdraw the special leave petition to file a review petition before the High Court. Permission is granted.

The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn".

The petitioner in view of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court filed this review petition.

The petitioner is said to have applied for an information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The information furnished to the petitioner under the Act 2005 is as follows:

Sri MK Choudhury, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that wrong submissions were made before this Court that the private respondent after closure of the school was appointed afresh in the other school run by the railways. The RTI information otherwise discloses that private respondent was not appointed afresh but was transferred from the school that was closed to the Hindi medium school run by the NF Railway in Guwahati. The counsel further referred to the observation made by this Court that the appointment of the private respondent with higher qualifications in lower primary school was illegal and the higher qualifications do not suit the skills required to teach the lower primary classes, therefore the private respondent was not eligible to be appointed as teacher in the lower primary section in Telugu medium schools. In view of the wrong submissions and the findings given by this Court that the respondent is not eligible to be appointed, it is strenuously argued that the order granting compensation is to be reviewed and the petitioner should be directed to be appointed in any other lower primary school of the railways commensurate with his qualification.

Per contra, Sri UK Nair, the counsel for the respondent, submitted that there has been no wrong submission made by the counsel. The order of the Supreme Court clearly discloses that the private respondent was transferred from the school in question to some other school. It is also submitted that the respondent has been teaching mathematics in the transferee school and now that the school is closed the question of appointing the petitioner does not arise. This Court although held that the respondent was not eligible to be appointed his appointment was not set aside. On the other hand, as an alternative, compensation was awarded, therefore the said order does not call for any interference.

Sri MK Choudhury submitted that the transfer of the private respondent was made in the year 2010 after the coming into force the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2005. The provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2005 declare that the education up to class IV is a lower primary section, therefore petitioner is still eligible to be appointed to teach up to class IV.

Per contra, Sri UK Nair submitted that the private respondent was transferred from a Telugu medium school to one Hindi medium school on 5.11.2008. He further submitted that the RTI reply does not specifically say the date of transfer, whereas the office-order discloses that the transfer order was issued prior to coming into force the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2005.

Upon thorough consideration of the submissions made at the bar there does not appear to be any deliberate, incorrect or false submissions made before the Court with regard to the status of transfer of the private respondent because the order of the Supreme Court clearly discloses that the petitioner has been transferred from the school in question to a Hindi medium school. It maybe this Court might observe that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed but the appointment was not cancelled. On the other hand this Court granted compensation to the petitioner. With the subsequent development of the Telugu medium school having been closed and the education curriculum up to class I to IV having been lower primary at the time when the application was made and the case having been decided the claim of the petitioner at this length of time that he is eligible to be appointed does not appear to be proper and tenable and no ground for review. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.