Smitha Johny versus Josny Varghese & Ors.

Service Law - Promotion - Claim for - Prescribed qualification - Kera/a Education Rules - Chapter XIV-A, r.43 C and r. 7 A(2) and Chapter XX/II, r. 12 - High School - Vacancy of High School Assistant (English) [HSA(English)] - Respondent no. 1, serving as Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA), sought promotion as HSA (English) - Eligibility and entitlement of respondent no. 1 and of the petitioner for being o considered for filling up the vacancy - Held: On facts, when the vacancy of HSA (English) arose, respondent No. 1 was the only UPSA qualified for the post of HSA (English) and, therefore, she was entitled to be promoted against the said vacancy - Though the petitioner was senior to respondent E no.1, she was not qualified for the post of HSA (English) on the date of occurrence of the vacancy and, therefore, she had no claim for promotion to the said vacancy - Relief prayed for by the petitioner was misconceived since on the date of the vacancy, the petitioner did not even possess the F prescribed qualification - Submission made on her behalf that the vacancy would be deemed to have been created not from the date of the vacancy, but from the date of the staff fixation order, also misconceived - Direction given by the High Court that since respondent No. 1 was the only qualified hand, G she was entitled to be considered for promotion, and, that she should be accommodated therein, does not call for any interference.

¶10

Respondent no.1, serving in a High School as Upper

¶11

68

¶12

H

¶13

SMITHA JOHNY v. JOSNY VARGHESE & ORS. 69

¶14

Primary School Assistant (UPSA), filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming promotion as High School Assistant (English) [HSA (English)], in a vacancy which, according to her, had arisen on 1st April, 2005. Respondent No.1 claimed that she was fully qualified to be promoted to the post of HSA (English) in terms of the Government Orj:ler. She contended that one post of HSA (English) had been sanctioned in terms of the staff fixation order for the year 2004-05, however, one 'A', a HSA (Social Science), who was not qualified as HSA (English), had been permitted to continue in the post of HSA (English) to avoid retrenching her and in the meantime, when the then Head Mistress of the School took voluntary retirement with effect from 31st March, 2004, 'A', being the senior-most HSA, was accommodated against that vacancy. Respondent no.1 contended that consequently, with effect from 1st April, 2005, a vacancy arose in the post of HSA (English) and such vacancy was required to be filled up by a qualified English Teacher.

A

B

c

0

• J ' ...

Respondent No.1, therefore, prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus or direction commanding the respondents, the Deputy Director (Education), the District Educational Officer, and the Manager of the School to promote her to the post of HSA (English), as on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy on 1st April, 2005, she was the only qualified candidate amongst the UPSA Cadre, who could be given such promotion. Since in the meanwhile, the Manager of the School had recalled respondent No.4, a protected HSA (Social Science) and she had rejoined her duties, a further prayer was made for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to command the aforesaid respondents not to post respondent no.4 in the vacancy which had arisen in the post of HSA (English), with effect from 1st April, 2005.

E

F

G

H

70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

¶26

A The writ petition filed by respondent No.1 was rejected by the Single Judge. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed a writ appeal. At this stage, the petitioner got herself impleaded as a respondent in the matter claiming that the actual date of vacancy, was 15.7.2005, the date on which B the staff fixation order was to take effect, and that she was fully qualified and was the senior-most in the cadre of HSA (English) for promotion as HSA (English). According to her, although, she may not have possessed the requisite B.Ed. degree on 1st April, 2005, when 'A' was c promoted to the post of Head Mistress, subsequently she acquired the said qualification when the results of the B.Ed. examination for the year 2005 was published by the Kerala University on 29th June, 2005.

¶27

The Writ Appeal was allowed by the Division Bench D on the ground that when the vacancy occurred on 1st April, 2005, the petitioner did not possess the B.Ed. qualification, though she may have been senior to respondent No.1 and that it was incorrect on the part of the petitioner to suggest that the vacancy had arisen from E the date of the staff fixation order. The Division Bench held that the vacancy was of HSA (English) and furthermore, in view of the Government Order dated 7th January, 2002, the Manager was not required to fill up the post of HSA with a protected teacher. However, the F Division Bench also held that since respondent no.4 had rejoined service, it would not be proper to upset the arrangement, and, accordingly held that since respondent No.1 was the only qualified hand, she was entitled to be considered for promotion, and accordingly · G gave a direction that Respondent No.1 should be accommodated therein.

¶28

Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court

¶29

HELD: 1. There is no reason to interfere with the H impugned judgment of the High Court since it has

¶30

SMITHA JOHNY v. JOSNY VARGHESE & ORS. 71

¶31

correctly analysed the position consequent upon the elevation of 'A'as Headmistress of the School. The Division Bench of the High Court has dealt with the provisions of Rule 7A(2) of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules, which provides that the posts which fell vacant on a closing date are to be filled up only by the reopening date. The High Court has rightly held that the staff fixation order for the ensuing year did not result in reduction of posts available and that it could not be disputed that the vacancy came to exist because of the. promotion of 'A'. Moreover, since the petitioner did not have the B.Ed. qualification as was required as an essential requisite on 1st April, 2005, she was not eligible for being considered for filling up the vacancy. [Para 12) [79-E-H; 80-A]

¶32

As per Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules, a U.P.S.A. who is qualified for the post of HSA has a claim for promotion to the post of HSA against a vacancy arising in the same School. As per Note (2) under Rule 43, promotion under the said rule shall be made from persons possessing the prescribed qualifications at the time of occurrence of vacancy. It is not disputed that as on 1st April, 2005, the petitioner did not possess the prescribed qualifications for the post of HSA (English), whereas respondent No.1 did possess the qualifications. It is clear from the pleadings in the case that as on 1st April, 2005, respondent no.1 was the only U.P.S.A. working in the School who was qualified for promotion as HSA (English). Even according to the petitioner, she acquired the qualification of B.Ed. in English only on 1st July, 2005. Hence, if a vacancy of HSA (English) arose in the School on 1st April, 2005, respondent No.1, being the only U.P.S.A. qualified for the post of HSA (English), was entitled to be promoted against the said vacancy in preference to the petitioner who, though senior to respondent no.1, was not qualified

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

¶42

A for the post of HSA (English) on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. [Para 13] [80-A-H; 81-A-D]

¶43

As regards the contention raised by respondent no.1 that a vacancy of HSA (English) arose in the School 8^{on1st April, 2005,it is clearthat accordingtothestaff} fixation for the academic year 2004-05, there was only one post of HSA (Social Science) in the High School. As against one sanctioned post, there were two teachers, 'A' and one 'P', working as HSA (Social Science). Since 'A' was senior to 'P', 'A' was rightly accommodated in the C only post of HSA (Social Science). Since there was a sanctioned post of HSA (English) and since, as per Annexure P1 G.O.(MS) No.11/2002/G.Edu. dated 7th January, 2002, the creation of the new cadre of HSA (English) should not cause retrenchment of existing D HSAs in the core subjects, the management and the education authorities allowed 'P' to continue in the School against the sanctioned post of HSA (English), though she was not qualified for the post of HSA (English). Later, in the vacancy of Headmistress which E arose on 1st April, 2005, 'A', HSA (Social Science) was promoted w.e.f. 1st April, 2005. Consequent on the said promotion of 'A' as Headmistress, the post of HSA (Social Science) held by her was vacated by her w.e.f. 1st April, 2005. But a vacancy of HSA (Social Science) did not F actually arise, as 'P' was already available in the School to occupy the post of HSA (Social Science) vacated by 'A'. If 'P' was accommodated in the only post of HSA (Social Science) w.e.f. 1st April, 2005, the only vacancy available as on 1st April, 2005 was in the post of HSA G (English). Thus, a vacancy of HSA (English) arose in the School on 1st April, 2005. Respondent no.4, who was not qualified for the post of HSA (English) and who was working as HSA (Social Science) in a Government School as a protected teacher, could not be

¶44

H

¶45

SMITHA JOHNY v. JOSNY VARGHESE & ORS. 73

¶46

accommodated in the post of HSA (English). During the academic year 2004-05, 'P', HSA (Social Science) had been allowed to continue in the School against the post of HSA (English) in terms of Annexure P1 Government Order dated 7th January, 2002 to avoid her retrenchment. Such a benefit could not be claimed by respondent no.4 who was working in another School and who did not face any retrenchment on account of the creation of the cadre of HSA (English). Thus, the post of HSA (English) fell vacant on 1st April, 2005, when 'A', HSA (Social Science) was promoted as Headmistress w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 and 'P' was accommodated in the resultant vacancy of HSA (Social Science). When the vacancy of HSA (English) arose on 1st April, 2005, respondent No.1 was the only U.P.S.A. qualified for the post of HSA (English) and hence she was entitled to be promoted against the said vacancy. Though the petitioner was senior to the respondent, she was not qualified for the post of HSA (English) as on 1st April, 2005 and hence, she had no claim for promotion to the said vacancy. [Para 14] [81-E-H; 82-A-G]

¶47

There is no legal basis for the contention of the petitioner that the vacancy of HSA (English) would have arisen only on 15th July, 2005, when the staff fixation for the academic year 2005-06 was made. Admittedly, a post of HSA (English) was sanctioned for the School in the staff fixation for the year 2004-05. No appointment was made against the said post of HSA (English) as one excess HSA (Social Science) was allowed to continue in the School against the said post, to avoid her retrenchment. As per Rule 12 of Chapter XXlll of the Kerala Education Rules, the staff sanctioned by the competent authority during the previous year shall continue till the 14th of July of the succeeding year. Therefore, the post of HSA (English)sanctioned in the staff fixation for the year 2004-05 continued till 14th of July, 2005. When the excess HSA (Social Science) 'P',

A

B

c

0

E

F

G

H

74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

¶57

A who was continuing against the post of HSA {English), was accommodated in the vacancy of HSA {Social Science) which arose on 1st April, 2005, due to the promotion of 'A', HSA {Social Science) as Headmistress, the post of HSA {English) fell vacant w.e.f. 1st April, 2005

¶58

B and respondent No.1, being the only U.P.S.A. qualified for the post of HSA {English), was entitled to be promoted in the said vacancy. [Para 15] [82-H; 83-A-D]

¶59

The directions ultimately given by the Division Bench have not been questioned by respondent No.1 C possibly because of the fact that while expressing unwillingness to unsettle the settled position, the High Court was also of the view that since respondent No.1 was the only qualified hand, she was entitled to be considered for promotion, particularly since a vacancy of D HSA had occurred during the said period. The Division Bench gave a dire.ction that respondent No.1 should be accommodated therein. The decision of the Division Bench of the High Court does not call for any interference. [Paras 16 and 17] [83-E-G]

¶60

E

¶61

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition {c) No. 20822 of 2006.

¶62

From the Judgment & Order dated 20.6.2006 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 1925 of 2005 and F Order dated 2.8.2006 in R.P. No. 568 of 2006.

¶63

Malin Poduval, Babita Sant, C.K. Rai, M. Anindita Popli for the Petitioner.

¶64

G Abraham Vakkanel, Romy Chacko, Ankit Dalela for the Respondents. 1

¶65

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶66

ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. The Respondent No.1 herein H sought a direction from the educational authorities to promote

¶67

SMITHA JOHNY v. JOSNY VARGHESE & ORS. · 75 [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

¶68

her as High School Assistant (English), hereinafter referred to as "HSA (English)", in a vacancy which, according fo her, had arisen on 1st April, 2005. One Smitha Johny, who was not initially impleaded in the writ petition, got herself impleaded as Respondent No.5 and has filed the Special Leave Petition questioning the judgment and order dated 20th June, 2006, passed by the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No.1925 of 2005 and order dated 2nd August, 2006, passed by the said High Court in Review Petition No.568 of 2006.

¶69

As mentioned hereinabove, the Respondent No.1, writ petitioner, who was serving in St. George's High School, Arakkunnam, as Upper Primary School Assistant, hereinafter referred to as "UPSA", claimed promotion to a vacancy, which, according to her, had occurred in HSA (English) on 1st April, 2005. On the other hand, the Petitioner was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant, hereinafter referred to as "LPSA", on 21st June, 2000, in the said School and was serving in such capacity throughout. At the time of entering into service, the Petitioner was a graduate in English and, had also obtained Teachers' Training Certificate (TTC). Subsequently, the Petitioner also acquired a B.Ed. degree in English from the Kerala University.

¶70

The Writ Petitioner/Respondent No.1 claimed that she was a graduate in the English language and had a B.Ed. degree and was, therefore, fully qualified to be promoted to the post of HSA (English) in terms of the aforesaid Government Order. It is also her case that one post of HSA (English) had been sanctioned in terms of the staff fixation order for the year 2004-05. However, one Smt. Alice Mathew, HSA (Social Science) who was not qualified as HSA (English), had been permitted to continue in the post of HSA (English) to avoid retrenching her. In the meantime, Smt. Lissy George K., Head Mistress of the School took voluntary retirement with effect from 31st March, 2004. Smt. Alice Mathew .. being the senior-most HSA, was accommodated against that vacancy. ·

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

¶80

A 4. Consequently, with effect from 1st April, 2005, a vacancy arose in the post of HSA (English) and according to the writ petitioner/Respondent No.1, such vacancy was required to be filled up by a qualified English Teacher. The Manager of the School, however, without understanding the Government Order B correctly, requested recall of the Respondent No.4, a protected HSA (Social Science), but such request was turned down. Thereupon, the writ petitioner/Respondent No.1 submitted a representation that she be promoted to the said post under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. Although, c according to the writ petitioner/Respondent No.1, no sanction was required for the said purpose and the Manager was free to promote her, the Respondent No.4, Smt. Valsamma Pathrose, was recalled and she rejoined her duties. In the writ petition the Respondent No.1, therefore, prayed for a writ in the 0^{nature of Mandamus or direction commanding therespondents,} the Deputy Director (Education), Civil Station, Kakkanad, the District Educational Officer, Ernakulam, Kerala, and the Manager of the School to promote her to the post of HSA (English), as on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy on E 1st April, 2005, she was the only qualified candidate amongst the UPSA Cadre, who could be given such promotion. A further prayer was made for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to command the aforesaid respondents not to post Valsamma Pathrose in the vacancy which had arisen in the post of HSA (English}, with effect from 1st April, 2005.

¶81

F

¶82

The writ petition filed by the Respondent No.1 was rejected by the learned Single Judge on 27th July, 2005, upon holding that since Smt. Alice Mathew was promoted as Head Mistress on 31st March, 2005 while she was holding the post G of HSA (Social Science), the vacancy created on account of her promotion was also to be treated as that of HSA (Social Science), notwithstanding the fact that she had been functioning as HSA (English). Accordingly, Valsamma Pathrose, a protected HSA (Social Science) teacher working in a H Government School would have to be recalled, as otherwise,

¶83

SMITHA JOHNY v. JOSNY VARGHESE & ORS. 77 [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

¶84

the Manager would have to appoint a new teacher in resultant vacancy of U PSA, if the Respondent No.1 was promoted as HSA (English).

¶85

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the Respondent No.1 filed a writ appeal, being WA No.1925/2005. At this stage it may be pointed out that on 15th June, 2005, the Petitioner herein got herself impleaded as Respondent No.5 in the writ petition filed by the Respondent No.1 herein claiming that the actual date of vacancy, was 15.7.2005, the date on which the staff fixation order was to take effect, and that she C was fully qualified and was the senior-most in the cadre of HSA (English) for promotion as HSA (English) in the vacancy caused by the promotion of Smt. Alice Mathew to the post of Head Mistress. According to her, although, she may not have possessed the requisite B.Ed. degree on 1st April, 2005, when Smt. Alice Mathew was promoted to the post of Head Mistress, D subsequently she acquired the said qualification when the results of the B.Ed. examination for the year 2005 was published by the Kerala University on 29th June, 2005.

¶86

The Writ Appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 was allowed on 20th June, 2006, upon holding that when the vacancy occurred on 1st April, 2005, the Petitioner herein did not possess the B.Ed. qualification, though she may have been senior to the writ petitioner/Respondent No.1 and that it was incorrect on the part of the Petitioner to suggest that the vacancy had arisen from the date of the staff fixation order. The Division Bench, accordingly, dismissed the claim of the Petitioner herein and held that the vacancy was of HSA (English). Furthermore, in view of the Government Order dated 7th January, 2002, the Manager was not required to fill up the G post of HSA with a protected teacher. However, the Division Bench also held that since Valsamma Pathrose had rejoined service, it would not be proper to upset the arrangement. Accordingly, the Division Bench indicated as follows :

B

E

F

H

78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

¶92

A " ......... Therefore, we hold that the Petitioner/Appellant was not liable to be overlooked for promotion being the only qualified hand. We are not unsettling the present arrangements, since because of the subsequent development that a vacancy of HSA has arisen during the 8 current year. The appellant should be accommodated thereto, for the reason that she had been denied her rightful claims during the last school year, and she is entitled to the benefits of the declaration, we have made above.

¶93

A

¶94

The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above."

¶95

c 8. The review petition filed for reviewing the judgment was also dismissed on 2nd August, 2006.

¶96

It is against the said two orders that the present Special Leave Petition has been filed by Smitha Johny, who was 0 impleaded as Respondent No.5 in the writ proceedings.

¶97

The case sought to be made out on behalf of the Petitioner is that the vacancy which had arisen on account of the promotion given to Smt. Alice Mathew on 1st April, 2005, E should have been for an HSA (Social Science) and not for an HSA (English), as held by the High Court, since Smt. Alice Mathew was an HSA (Social Science) during the academic year 2004-05, when the vacancy had occurred. Learned counsel appearing in support of the Special Leave Petition F submitted that the Division Bemch of the High Court had erred in holding otherwise. In this regard, reference was made to Rule 12 of the Kerala Education Rules which deals with the strength of teaching staff. Learned counsel pointed out that the actual attendance on the date of visit of authorized persons, plus five G per cent of the roll strength, not exceeding the roll strength of each class alone, is to be reckoned as the effective strength of the School for fixing the number of divisions and the strength of staff. Furthermore, the staff sanctioned by the Competent Authority during the previous year would continue till the 14th

¶98

H

¶99

SMITHA JOHNY v. JOSNY VARGHESE & ORS. 79 [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

¶100

of July of the succeeding year. Learned counsel submitted that A since the vacancy had occurred on 1st April, 2005, during the continuance of the staff sanctioned by the Competent Authority, the vacancy caused by the promotion of Smt. Alice Mathew as Head Mistress should have been for an HSA (Social Science Teacher) since Smt. Alice Mathew was holding the said post B at the time of her elevation. Learned counsel submitted that the Petitioner had been wrongly denied her right to be promoted as HSA (Social Science) being the senior-most High School Assista.nt in the School.

¶101

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent urged^c that the relief prayed for by the Petitioner was misconceived since on the date of the vacancy, the Petitioner did not even possess the B.Ed. qualification. The submission made on her behalf that the vacancy would be deemed to have been created not from the date of the vacancy, but from the date of the staff D fixation order, is entirely misconceived, as has been held by the Division Bench of the High Court, while disposing of the appeal preferred by the Respondent No.1 herein.

¶102

Having considered the submissions made on behalf E of the respective parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court since, in our view, the High Court has correctly analysed the position consequent upon the elevation of Smt. Alice Mathew as Headmistress of the School. The Division Bench of the High Court has dealt with F the provisions of Rule 7 A(2) of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules, which provides that the posts which fell vacant on a closing date are to be filled up only by the reopening date. The High Court has rightly held that the staff fixation order for the ensuing year did not result in reduction of posts available G and that it could not be disputed that the vacancy came to exist because of the promotion of Smt. Alice Mathew. Moreover, since the Petitioner did not have the B.Ed. qualification as was required as an essential requisite on 1st April, 2005, we agree with the High Court that she was not eligible for being H

¶103

F

¶104

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

¶105

A considered for filling up the vacancy.

¶106

Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules as it stood at the relevant time and was relied upon by the Writ Petitioner/Respondent No.1, is extracted below :

¶107

B

¶108

c

¶109

"43. Subject to Rules 44 and 45 and considerations of efficiency and any general order that may be issued by the Government, vacancies in any higher grade. of pay shall be filled up by promotion of qualified hands in the lower grade according to seniority, if such hands are available:

¶110

D

¶111

Provided that in the case of promotions to the post of High School Assistant (subject), the minimum subject requirements alone need be satisfied, to safeguard the interest of trained graduates who are awaiting promotions as High School Assistants.

¶112

Note.- (1) A teacher in a lower grade of pay in one category of post is eligible for promotion to a higher grade of pay in another category of post provided:

¶113

E

¶114

(i) he has the prescribed qualifications; and

¶115

F

¶116

(ii) there is no teacher with the prescribed qualifications in the lower grade of pay of the category of post to which promotions are to be made.

¶117

Note.- (2) Promotion under this rule shall be made from persons possessing the prescribed qualifications at the time of occurrence of vacancy."

¶118

G

¶119

It is not in dispute that as per Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules, a U.P.S.A. who is qualified for the post of HSA has a claim for promotion to the post of HSA against a vacancy arising in the same School. As per Note (2) H under Rule 43, promotion under the said rule shall be made from

¶120

SMITHA JOHNY v. JOSNY VARGHESE & ORS. 81 [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

¶121

persons possessing the prescribed qualifications at the time of occurrence of vacancy (emphasis supplied). It is not disputed that as on 1st April, 2005, the Petitioner, Smt. Smitha Johny, did not possess the prescribed qualifications for the post of HSA (English), whereas the Respondent No.1 Smt. Josny Varghese did possess the qualifications. It is clear from the pleadings in the case that as on 1st April, 2005, Smt. Josny Varghese was the only U.P.S.A. working in the School who was qualified for promotion as HSA (English). Even according to the Petitioner, she acquired the qualification of B.Ed. in English only on 1st July, 2005. Hence, if a vacancy of HSA (English) arose in the School on 1st April, 2005, the Respondent No.1 Josny Varghese, being the only U.P.S.A. qualified for the post of HSA (English), was entitled to be promoted against the said vacancy in preference to the Petitioner Smt. Smitha Johny who, though senior to Smt. Josny Varghese, was not qualified for the post of HSA (English) on the date of occurrence of the vacancy.

¶122

Hence, the next question is whether a vacancy of HSA (English) arose in the School on 1st April, 2005, as contended by the Respondent No.1. According to the staff fixation for the academic year 2004-05, there was only one post of HSA (Social Science) in the St. George High School, Arakkunnam. As against one sanctioned post, there were two teachers, Smt. Alice Mathew and Smt. P.P. Leelamma, working as HSA (Social Science). Since Smt. Alice Mathew was senior to Smt. P.P. Leelamma, Smt. Alice Mathew was rightly accommodated in the only post of HSA (Social Science). Since there was a sanctioned post of HSA (English) and since, as per Annexure P1 G.O.(MS) No.11/2002/G.Edu. dated 7th January, 2002, the creation of the new cadre of HSA (English) should not cause retrenchment of existing HSAs in the core subjects, the management and the education authorities allowed Smt. P.P. Leelamma to continue in the School against the sanctioned post of HSA (English), though she was not qualified for the post ofHSA (English). Later, in the vacancy of Headmistress which arose on 1st April, 2005, Smt. Alice Mathew, HSA (Social

A

B

c

0

E

F

G

H

82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL) S.C.R.

¶132

A Science) was promoted w.e.f. 1st April, 2005. Consequent on the said promotion of Smt. Alice Mathew as Headmistress, the post of HSA (Social Science) held by her was vacated by her w.e.f. 1st April, 2005. But a vacancy of HSA (Social Science) did not actually arise, as Smt. P.P. Leelamma was already B available in the School to occupy the post of HSA (Social Science) vacated by Smt. Alice Mathew. If Smt. P.P. Leelamma was accommodated in the only post of HSA (Social Science) w.e.f. 1st April, 2005, the only vacancy available as on 1st April, 2005 was in the post of HSA (English). Thus, a vacancy of HSA c (English) arose in the School on 1st April, 2005. Smt. Valsamma Pathrose, who was not qualified for the post of HSA (English) and who was working as HSA (Social Science) in a Government School as a protected teacher, could not be accommodated in the post of HSA (English). During the academic year 2004-05, Smt. P.P. Leelamma, HSA (Social 0 Science) had been allowed to continue in the School against the post of HSA (English) in terms of Annexure P1 Government Order dated 7th January, 2002 to avoid her retrenchment. Such a benefit·could not be claimed by Smt. Valsamma Pathrose who was working in another School and who did not face any E retrenchment on account of the creation of the cadre of HSA (English). Thus, the post of HSA (English) fell vacant on 1st April, 2005, when Smt. Alice Mathew, HSA (Social Science) was promoted as Headmistress w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 and Smt. P.P. Leelamma was accommodated in the resultant vacancy F of HSA.(Social Science). When the vacancy of HSA (English) arose on 1st April, 2005, the Respondent No.1, Smt. Josny Varghese, was the only U.P.S.A. qualified for the post of HSA (English) and hence she was entitled to be promoted against the said vacancy. Though the Petitioner Smt. Smitha Johny was G senior to the respondent, she was not qualified for the post of HSA (English) as on 1st April, 2005 and hence, she had no claim for promotion to the said vacancy.

¶133

There is no legal basis for the contention of the H Petitioner that the vacancy of HSA (English) would have arisen

¶134

SMITHA JOHNY v. JOSNY VARGHESE & ORS. 83 [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

¶135

only on 15th July, 2005, when the staff fixation for the academic year 2005-06 was made. Admittedly, a post of HSA (English) was sanctioned for the School in the staff fixation for the year 2004-05. No appointment was made against the said post of HSA (English) as one excess HSA (Social Science) was allowed to continue in the School against the said post, to avoid her retrenchment. As per Rule 12 of Chapter XXI 11 of the Kera la Education Rules, the staff sanctioned by the competent authority during the previous year shall continue till the 14th of July of the succeeding year. Therefore, the post of HSA (English)sanctioned in the staff fixation for the year 2004-05 continued till 14th of July, 2005. When the excess HSA (Social Science) Smt. P.P. Leelamma, who was continuing against the post of HSA (English), was accommodated in the vacancy of HSA (Social Science) which arose on 1st April, 2005, due to the promotion ofSmt. Alice Mathew, HSA (Social Science) as Headmistress, the post of HSA (English) would fall vacant w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 and the Respondent No.1, being the only U.P.S.A. qualified for the post of HSA (English), was entitled to be promoted in the said vacancy.

A

B

c

0^.

The directions ultimately given by the Division Bench have not been questioned by the Respondent No.1 herein possibly because of the fact that while expressing unwillingness to unsettle the settled position, the High Court was also of the view that since the Respondent No.1 was the only qualified hand, she was entitled to be considered for promotion, particularly since a vacancy of HSA had occurred during the said period. The Division Bench gave a direction that the Respondent No.1 should be accommodated therein.

¶141

E

¶142

F

¶143

In our view, the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court does not call for any interference and the Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶144

G

¶145

There will, however, be no order as to costs.

¶146

B.B.B.

¶147

SLP dismissed. H

Smitha Johny v. Josny Varghese & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smitha Johny v. Josny Varghese & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Challa Jaya Bhaskar & Ors. versus Thungathurthi Surender & Ors.

Thanu Ram versus State of M.P.

M/S. Indian Railways Catering & Tourism Corporation Limited and Anr. versus M/S. Doshion Veolia Water Solutions (P) Limited and Ors.

M/S. Angel Baby Products Pvt. Ltd. versus New Okhla Industrial Development Authority

Amar Singh versus Union of India

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. versus Food Inspector and Anr.