The petitioner sought a writ challenging an order regarding seniority for the post of Head Master under corporate management. The court found the petitioner's argument that the 5th respondent relinquished her claim to be incorrect. The petition was dismissed.
The writ petition is 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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2017/20TH ASHADHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 11166 of 2010 (U)
PETITIONER:
MOHAN.P., HEAD MASTER, AIDED L.P.SCHOOL, KUNDALY, S.P.PURAM P.O., MUNNAR - 685617.
BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN
RESPONDENTS:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,IDUKKI.
3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MUNNAR.
4. MANAGER, THE HIGH RANGE ESTATE SCHOOLS, KDHP COMPANY (P) LTD.KDHP HOUSE, MUNNAR-685612.
5. ROSELIN PUSHPITA, W/O.MR.RETNA RAJ, SANKUPPADI, ANACHAL P.O. IDUKKI.
*6. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. R7 IMPLEADED
7. RAM RAJ,S/O.V.GOPAL, MIDDLE DIVISION, DEVIKULAM ESTATE, MUNNAR.P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.
ADDL. R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.06.2014 IN IA.3823/2014.
R1 TO R3 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RON BASTIAN R4 BY ADVS.SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.TERRY V.JAMES R5 BY ADVS.SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN ADDL.R7 BY ADV.SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 11166 of 2010 (U)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
| EXT. | P1: | A TRUE COPY OF THE | ORDER OF THE DPI DATED 30.3.2006. |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXT. | P2: | A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 30.5.2006. |
JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.11406/06 |
| EXT. | P3: | A TRUE COPY OF THE | GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 19.9.2006. |
| EXT. | P4: | A TRUE COPY OF THE | SENIORITY LIST OF TEACHERS. |
| EXT. | P5: | A TRUE COPY OF THE MANAGER. |
LETTER DATED 27.1.2005 OF THE |
| EXT. | P6: | A TRUE COPY OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. |
LETTER DATED 1.2.2005 OF THE |
| EXT. | P7: | A TRUE COPY OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. |
LETTER DATED 4.5.2005 OF THE |
| EXT. | P8: | A TRUE COPY OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. |
LETTER DATED 13.12.2007 OF THE |
| EXT. | P9: | A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT. |
G.O. DATED 5.11.2009 OF THE |
| EXT. | P10: | A TRUE COPY OF THE TO AEO. |
LETTER DATED 24.12.2009 OF THE DPI |
| EXT. | P11: | A TRUE COPY OF THE THE MANAGER. |
NOTICE DATED 16.3.2010 ISSUED BY |
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
==================
W.P.(c) No.11166 of 2010
==================
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P9 order passed by the Government. The Government passed the above order in a revision filed by additional seventh respondent. The matter is relating to the seniority to the post of Head Master under the corporate management of fourth respondent. Admittedly, there were four posts of Head Master. It appears that there were four vacancies as on 1.4.2004. As seen from the proceedings and pleadings before this Court, there was no seniority list published on 1.4.2004. The seniority list was published on 30.9.2006. Immediately on publication of seniority list it appears that a complaint was made by the fifth respondent. She claimed that she was qualified as on 2.3.2001 on account of her age. In the sense she completed 50 years as on 2.3.2001 and she was not considered for the post of Head Master. The vacancy of Head Master
W.P.(C) No.11166/2010 - : 2 :-
referred on 1.4.2004. The AEO as well as the Government found that she was eligible. The Government accordingly directed to recast the seniority list with effect from the date of occurrence of vacancy. This order is under challenge.
It is to be noted that nothing would go to show on record that the fifth respondent had ever relinguished her right of promotion. On the other hand, it can be seen that the seniority list published only on 13.9.2006. It is also to be noted much before seniority list published by letter dated 1.2.2005, she expressed her willingness to consider for the promotion to the post as Head Mistress. No doubt, it appears that she was ignorant as to the qualifications and seniority of others in as such as that she has no previous occasion
W.P.(C) No.11166/2010 - : 3 :-
to know about the seniority list. In that view of the matter it cannot be said that the fifth respondent slept over her right. The manager could not have promoted petitioner overlooking the claim of the seniors. The Manager alone need be blamed for such action. There is no scope for interference with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE,
JUDGE
al/-
True copy
P.S to Judge
W.P.(C) No.11166/2010 - : 4 :-
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
al/-
True copy
P.S to Judge
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
W.P.(C) No.11166/2010 - : 5 :-
==================
O.P. No.1008 of 1999
==================
16th day of June, 2016
J U D G M E N T
W.P.(C) No.11166/2010 - : 6 :-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can interfere with the impugned orders in relation to seniority.
Whether the petitioner can be ordered to be reverted from the post of Head Master.
MOHAN.P.
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
ROSELIN PUSHPITA
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
