K. S. MEENAKSHY Vs. KOMALAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contest between the petitioner Meenakshi, on the one hand, and the 1st respondent Komalakumari, on the other, is for appointment to the post of High School Assistant (Hindi) which fell vacant during the academic year 1974-75 in the school of which the 2nd respondent is the Manager. The 3rd respondent is the District Educational Officer concerned, and the 4th respondent, the State of Kerala.

(2.) Between 6th July 1965 and 31st March 1966 the 1st respondent had worked as a Higher Grade Hindi Teacher in that school though she had not then acquired any one of the alternative training qualifications prescribed in Chap.31, R.2(b)(iv)(B) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. For the periods from 8th June 1966 to 4th July 1967 (according to the petitioner, 4th July 1966) and 3rd August 1970 to 14th January 1971 the 1st respondent had also worked as a lower grade part-time Hindi Teacher in that school. On the appointment of the 1st respondent in that school as a full-time lower grade Hindi Teacher from 15th January 1971, the petitioner was appointed to the post of part-time lower grade Hindi Pandit which she had to vacate on 31st March 1971, on reversion of the 1st respondent to that post. The petitioner was subsequently appointed for the periods from 14th July 1971 to 11th October 1971 and from 19th December 1973 to 4th March 1974 to the post of full-time higher grade High School Assistant in that school. In May 1974 the 1st respondent obtained the training qualification after having attended, from 12th October 1971 to 10th April 1972, the Language Teachers' Training Certificate Course in Kerala Varma College, Trichur.

(3.) A vacancy for the post of High School Assistant (Hindi) arose in that school in the academic year 1974-75. Aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner in that vacancy by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent came up to this Court with O.P. No. 3139 of 1975; and that resulted in Ext. P-1 judgment dated 8th April 1976, wherein the observation was that the petitioner therein (the 1st respondent herein) might make a fresh representation before the Government (5th respondent therein) in regard to the claim for protection under G.O. MS. 104/69/Edn., dated 6th March 1969, and also one to the District Educational Officer (2nd respondent therein) in regard to the claim, if any, founded on R.51A of Chap.14A of the Rules. Taking advantage of those observations the 1st respondent herein submitted her representations to the District Educational Officer as well as to the Government. The representation received by the Government was sent down to the District Educational Officer for disposal along with the representation received by him. Ext. P-2 is the copy of the proceedings dated 16th June 1976 of the District Educational Officer (3rd respondent herein) disposing of the representations. In Ext. P-2 order the District Educational Officer took the view that the 1st respondent herein was not entitled to the protection under G.O. Ms. 104/69/Edn., dated 6th March 1969. He also held that the 1st respondent herein was not entitled to any preference over the petitioner herein on the ground of her having entered service of that school prior to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was a teacher qualified for appointment to the post of High School Assistant (Hindi) when she was relieved for want of vacancy, whereas she was not.