REENA R P Vs. GEENA R S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant. The first respondent herein was the Writ Petitioner. A vacancy of High School Assistant (HSA) (Hindi) arose in the 5th respondent's school on 5.6.2002, on the re-opening day of the school in the academic year 2002-2003. The appellant was a claimant for the post under Rule 43 of Chap. XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules (for short "KER") whereas the first respondent/Writ Petitioner was a claimant under Rule 51-A. The first respondent had worked as HSA (Hindi) from 14.7.2000 to 29.9.2000. The said appointment was approved also. The appellant has approved service as Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA) since 1.8.2000.

(2.) The Manager of the School from among the two rivals, preferred the first respondent and appointed her as HSA (Hindi) with effect from 5.6.2002. The said appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer. The appellant challenged that appointment and its approval before the Director of Public Instruction, by filing Ext.P3 revision. The Director of Public Instruction, after hearing both sides, allowed the revision by Ext.P7 order dated 10.2.2004. The appointment of the first respondent was set aside and there was a further direction to promote the appellant to the post of HSA (Hindi). The first respondent preferred Ext.P8 re vision against that order before the Government under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of the KER. Thereafter the Writ Petition was filed before this Court challenging Ext.P7 and also seeking a direction to the Government to consider Ext.8. This Court entertained the Writ Petition and after hearing both sides, allowed the same.

(3.) It is common ground that if the appellant is qualified for the post of HSA (Hindi), she is entitled to be preferred over the first respondent the former being a claimant under Rule 43. We notice that the above legal position has changed after the amendment of Rule 51-A, in 2005.