The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in employment disputes and upheld the petitioner's right to fair treatment.

1. The short facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner submits that the fourth respondent school St.Patrick's Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, is administered by the first respondent / Department of School Education and is governed by the Board of Regulations framed for Anglo-Indian Schools, Tamil Nadu. The fourth respondent is imparting education not only to Anglo-Indian children but also to children of other religions. There are nearly 1200 students and about 40 teaching staff. The fourth respondent School is receiving grant in aid from the Government of Tamil Nadu. As per the Code of regulations for Anglo-Indian Schools, every school shall be provided with staff and pupil's libraries of suitable books, properly cataloged.

2. The petitioner additionally added that there were nearly 5000 books in the fourth respondent school. The fourth respondent called for suitable candidates for appointment as a librarian in their school during June 2005 as the then existing librarian retired from their services. The petitioner made an application to the fourth respondent's School for the said librarian post, she is a Post Graduate having obtained the degree of M.A., M.L.I.S., and M.Phil in Library Science from recognized Universities, namely the University of Madras and also Annamalai University.

On verifying her qualifications the fourth respondent appointed her as a Librarian by their letter dated 03.06.2005 on probation for a period of one year. All her certificates in originals starting from her school education till Post Graduation were submitted to the fourth respondent's school along with her application for the post and they are still in the custody of the fourth respondent. On satisfactory completion of the probation period, her services were extended by the fourth respondent for a period of one more academic year upto 30.04.2007 by their letter dated 30.03.2006, the said period was further extended for a period of one year by the fourth respondent vide their letter dated 23.04.2007 upto 30.04.2008 and further by letter dated 18.04.2008 upto 30.04.2009. As such her appointment as librarian was extended from time to time and is in force upto 30.04.2009. The extensions were granted after seeing her unblemished services and with a view to give credit. At the time of issuing the letter dated 18.04.2008, she requested the fourth respondent to make her services permanent since she had already completed three years of unblemished service. The fourth respondent did not adhere to her request and expressed that the librarian post is not an aided post though the school is receiving grant in aid from the Government. In spite of her requests regarding the grant received by them for their staff, the fourth respondent refused to divulge any information. Her brother working as a Reader in the Department of Statistics, Loyola College, Chennai and she made a representation to the Public Information Officer / District Educational Officer by letter dated 04.07.2008 seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 specifically with regard to the post of librarian in the fourth respondent's school. The second respondent belatedly sent a reply collecting information from the third respondent. The third respondent had collected the entire information supplied by them on instructions from the fourth respondent's school. A perusal of the said information annexure would disclose as to how the information furnished by them are irrelevant and inconsistent, since the information furnished by the respondents 2 to 4 are not satisfactory, a further representation was made to the State Information Commissioner by letter dated 01.09.2008. This information has been sought on their behalf but sought as a matter of general information.

3. The petitioner additionally stated that the fourth respondent was annoyed at the information sought for by her brother, as a result of which the fourth respondent decided to terminate her services