The main legal point established is that the appointment made on compassionate grounds in accordance with the prescribed qualifications and age limit cannot be subjected to recovery of excess payment without issuing notice to the petitioner.

1. Petitioner is working as sewing mistress at the government High School, Ambikapuram, Trichy District. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds, on 27.06.1979.

2. The case of the petitioner is that before appointment, the Chief Educational Officer, Trichy had informed the Director of School Education that the petitioner had failed in S.S.L.C examination but she possessed technical qualifications prescribed for appointment as sewing mistress.

3. The Director of School Education clarified vide L.Dis.No.97991/C-23/78 dated 13.10.1978, that the petitioner was qualified for appointment to the post of sewing mistress as per qualification prescribed under the Special Rules, and further that she was also within the age limit prescribed for appointment. It was after the clarification,that the petitioner was appointed as sewing mistress.

4. An audit objection was raised, that the petitioner had not passed S.S.L.C examination, thus was not entitled to the pay in the scale of Rs.610-1075 with effect from 01.10.1984 and in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 with effect from 01.06.1988.

5. It was held in the impugned order, that pay of the petitioner was to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.505-845/- with effect from 1.10.1984 and in the scale of Rs.950-1500 with effect from 1-6-1988. The objection was replied to by Chief Educational Officer, stating that the petitioner was appointed only after getting clarification from the Director of School Education, therefore, there was no need to give special exemption from passing S.S.L.C examination. It was made clear that secondary grade scale of pay allowed to her be continued.

6. The Head master of the school, however passed the order dated 27.06.2001, holding that the fixation of pay scale of the petitioner was incorrect, and ordered the refixation of her salary in the scale of Rs.505-845 with effect from 1.10.1984 and in the scale of Rs.950-1050 with effect from 1-6-1988 and in the selection grade scale of Rs.1200-2040 with effect from 4-7-1989. It was also ordered that excess payment received by the petitioner to be recovered from her.

7. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that though the order affects the civil right of the petitioner, but no notice was given to her before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

8. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that admittedly there are no allegations of fraud or misrepresentation against the petitioner, on the other hand the material on record shows, that appointment of the petitioner to the post was, in pursuance to the sanction granted by the Director of School Education. It was therefore not open to recover the excess amount even if wrongly paid.

9. It is not disputed, that before passing the impugned order, no notice was issued to the petitioner. Consequently accepting the contentions laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is ordered.

10. A writ in the nature of certiorari, is issued quashing the impugned order dated 27.06.2001, with a consequential writ in the nature of mandamus, is also issued directing, the respondents to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner within two months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order.

11. It is made clear that in case the recovered amount is not refunded to the petitioner within two months of the receipt of certified copy of this order, the petitioner shall also entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% from the date of recovery till repayment.

12. No costs.