The Court emphasized the need for uniform treatment of petitioners in analogous situations concerning educational employment disputes.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who joined the service of the school managed by the 5^th respondent herein as UPSA on 19.10.1990, has admittedly retired from the service on 31.05.2023. During the year 2019-20, on the basis of the results pursuant to the visit by a Super Check Cell, one UPSA division was found to be in excess, since there were certain bogus admissions to the school concerned. Therefore, the petitioner was retrenched from service. The petitioner, however, contended that she ought to have been extended the protection and included in the teachers bank, with reference to the various Government Orders. An order of penalty was also imposed on the petitioner during the pendency of an application seeking regularisation of the services of the petitioner without a sanctioned post. The order of penalty at Ext.P5 is challenged before the Director as evidenced by Ext.P6. The Director, subsequently, issued the order at Ext.P7 stating that the it is for the petitioner to approach the Government seeking regularisation, if any. On that basis, the petitioner simultaneously approached the Deputy Director of Education as well as the Government, pointing out that she requires to be extended the benefit of protection by being included in the teachers bank and, further, regularising the period of service. The prayer as above came to be disposed of by the impugned order at Ext.P10, essentially finding that the imposition of penalty pursuant to Ext.P5 was justified, and since the petitioner is one among the responsible persons for the bogus admissions, apart from the Headmistress, she may not be entitled to the benefits sought for by her. It is seeking to challenge Ext.P10 issued as above; the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court the different treatment extended to similarly placed teachers as evidenced by Exts.P11, P12 and P13. It is contended that, in view of the detailed consideration and grant of similar benefits under Exts. P11 to P13, the petitioner’s request was required to be considered in the same manner, instead of coming to decision like the one in Ext. P10.

4. I have considered the aforesaid submission along with the contents of Exts.P11 to P13 . This Court notices that the Government has extensively considered the claim made by the similarly placed teachers while issuing the orders at Exts.P11 to P13. This Court further notices that the benefit of protection has been extended in almost similar circumstances to other teachers. However, a perusal of Ext.P10 does not show that the Government has made any reference to the orders at Exts.P11 to P13, though they were issued earlier to Ext.P10.

5. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner's prayer requires a reconsideration at the hands of the Government.

6. To facilitate the afore, the impugned proceedings at Ext.P10 is set aside. There will be a direction to the Government to consider the petitioner's representation at Ext.P9 afresh, also taking into account the orders of the Government at Exts.P11 to P13 and to pass a fresh order, after extending an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

7. There will also be a direction to the Director of Education to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P5 order of penalty.

8. The petitioner has also filed I.A No.3 of 2024, pointing out that appropr