The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in employment disputes and held that the impugned order withdrawing the promotion was passed in violation of these principles.

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 25.10.2010 on the file of the Respondent No.4 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to retain the Petitioner in the Post of the Head Mistress in the 4th Respondent School as per the earlier order of promotion dated 07.07.2010 on the file of the Respondent No.4.)

1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 25.10.2010 in the file of the 4th respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently to retain the petitioner in the post of Headmistress in the 4th respondent School as per the earlier order of promotion dated 07.07.2010 on the file of the 4th respondent.

2. The petitioner was appointed Secondary Grade Teacher at the 4th respondent minority school viz. R.C.Primary School, Abbasipuram, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District, under the Arch Diocese of Madurai. The petitioner was transferred to R.C. Middle School, Theni on 03.07.1993. Then again, the petitioner was transferred back to the 4th respondent school on 18.11.1996. She had 20 years of service as Secondary Grade Teacher at the time of filing this writ petition.

3. Prior to the appointment, the petitioner had finished her HSC and completed 2 years course in Brindavan Kindergarten Teacher's Training and obtained a Teacher's Certificate No.55/88 (Secondary Grade) dated 20.06.1988 issued by the Tamil Nadu Education Department. Thereafter, she had also completed the B.Lit.(Tamil) during the year 2004.

4. The 3rd respondent had vide proceedings in Thu.Mu.No.559/A6/2000 dated 20.09.2000 had provided selection grade to the petitioner for having completed 10 years of service in the cadre of secondary grade teacher. She had also earned her increments in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher before being promoted to the post of Head Mistress by the 4th respondent by order dated 07.07.2010 in the same School with effect from 09.07.2010. She had joined the post and started discharging her duties as the Headmistress of the 4th respondent School. The 4th respondent had sought the customary approval of the of the 3rd respondent for the promotion of the petitioner.

5. In proceedings in Na.Ka.No.464/A1/2010 dated 14.10.2010, the 3rd respondent had raised questions regarding the eligibility of the petitioner for the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher and directed the 4th respondent to refix the scale of pay. In response to the said communication, the 4th respondent had issued the impugned order withdrawing the earlier order of promotion dated 07.07.2010. On perusal, it is seen that the above proceedings in Na.Ka.No.464/A1/2010 dated 14.10.2010 of the 3rd respondent is not marked for the petitioner indicating that the decision was taken behind her back.

6. No notice was given to the petitioner for demoting the petitioner from the post of Headmistress to Secondary Grade Teacher. According to the petitioner, she is not even aware of the reasons why she is disqualified for the post of Headmistress at the time of passing of the impugned order dated 20.10.2010 of the 4th respondent. It was pointed out that the impugned order is cryptic and not speaking. Therefore, the petitioner alleged, that the impugned order dated 25.10.2010 of the 4th respondent is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

7. The petitioner submits that she had completed 20 years of service as Secondary Grade Teacher and has been provided selection grade in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher on completion of 10 years and therefore she is eligible for promotion to the post of Headmistress. It was alleged that the 4th respondent instead of justifying its own order of promotion had chosen to withdraw the order of promotion in an act of fear. The petitioner is aggrieved at the demoti