S.RAJALAKSHMY Vs. SASIDHARAN K.V.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by a person, who is not a party to the proceeding, after seeking leave of Court. The subject matter in issue is regarding appointment of a person as Headmistress-in-Charge. The appellant herein, who was working as HSA in the Sreekrishna Higher Secondary School, Guruvayoor was given charge of Headmistress, when Smt. Latha, who was working as Headmistress, was appointed as the Principal of the Higher Secondary School. According to the appellant, she was the senior most High School Assistant and therefore, she was given charge of the Principal. Smt. Latha's appointment as Principal was not approved by the educational authorities and as a result of which she had to be reverted to the post of Headmistress in the said School. Smt. Latha filed W.P.(C)No.17014/2020 before this Court and by an interim order dated 18.08.2020, this Court directed the official respondents to maintain status quo as on 21.7.2020 permitting Smt. Latha to work as Principal till a final decision is taken on Ext.P5 revision petition filed by the Manager. It is submitted that no orders had been so far passed in Ext.P5 referred to in the said case and the said writ petition is still pending and Smt.Latha, therefore, continues as Principal of HSS and the reversion did not take place. In the meantime, W.P.(C)No.18401/2020 is filed by one Sri. Sasidharan K.V. claiming to be a qualified HSA to be posted as Principal-in-Charge. He contended that the appellant herein, though was appointed as Headmistress-in-Charge, was not test qualified, though she was senior to him and therefore, he should be given charge of Headmaster in the High School Section. The learned single Judge, by judgment dated 16.9.2020, allowed the writ petition directing the Manager to appoint Sri. Sasidharan K.V., subject to his qualification as the Headmaster of the School.

(2.) The appellant herein, Smt. S. Rajalakshmy, who was earlier appointed as Headmistress-in-charge, has approached this Court inter alia contending that, though she was the person, who was appointed as Headmistress-in-Charge, without impleading her as a party to the proceeding, the above writ petition came to be filed and an order was obtained behind her back.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent Sri. R.K. Muraleedharan, Sri. T.K.Vipin Das, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Manager of the School and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 3 rd respondent.