The High Court dismissed the writ appeals. It held that the appellant, though senior, is not a graduate, whereas the 1st respondent has a preferential claim by virtue of graduation. Consequently, for the substantive post arising in 2008, the appellant is not entitled to appointment.
The writ appeals were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/13TH MAGHA 1933
WA.No. 159 of 2012 () IN WPC/12867/2009
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.12867/2009 DATED 10/01/2012 APPELLANT(S)/5TH RESPONDENT:
R.GEETHAKUMARY WIFE OF THE LATE G.SASIDHARAN NAIR, AGED 49 YEARS TEACHER-IN-CHARGE, VTM UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL MANNADI P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT RESIDING AT PAZHAYAKALAYIL MANNADY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR (SR.) SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN
RESPONDENT(S):/ PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4
1. MADHUSOODANAN NAIR
2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
5. STATE OF KERALA
R BY MR.GEORGE MECHERIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R1 BY S.MUHAMMED HANEEF
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-022012, ALONG WITH W.A.NO.160/2012 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.NO.159/2012
APPENDIX
APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE-I : COPY OF ORDER GO(Rt.) NO.4246/09/G.Edn. DATED 12/10/2009 ISSUED BY R5.
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE.
jg
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
W.A.Nos.159 & 160 of 2012
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2012.
J U D G M E N T
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Heard learned Senior counsel Shri.M.Rajendran Nair appearing for the appellant in both the Writ Appeals.
was right in upholding the claim of the management as well as the 1st respondent in the Writ Appeal for appointment as Head Mistress in the U.P.School with effect from 01/01/2008. The appellant's claim is purely based on appointment as Head Mistress in a leave vacancy that ended on 31/12/2007. Admittedly, the 1st respondent has a preferential claim over the appellant for appointment as Head Mistress by virtue of graduation she has. Though the appellant has seniority over the 1st respondent, she is not a graduate, and therefore the 1st respondent's claim outweighed that of the appellant's under the relevant Rules. Therefore, the only question to be considered is whether the appointment of the appellant as
W.A.Nos.159 & 160/2012
2
Head Mistress in a leave vacancy entitles her for appointment to the substantive post which arose only on 01/01/2008. We do not find any justification to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge because admittedly the 1st respondent has preferential claim as on the date regular vacancy arose.
Consequently, these Writ Appeals are dismissed.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)
jg
2 issues framed by the court
Whether appointment as Head Mistress in a leave vacancy entitles the appellant to the substantive post.
Whether the learned Single Judge was right in upholding the management's claim for appointment given the 1st respondent's preferential claim.
R. Geethakumary
Madhusoodanan Nair
C.N. Ramachandran Nair
Babu Mathew P. Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
