REEMA Vs. GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P (C) No.16179/2020 is the appellant herein aggrieved by the judgment dated 05-01-2021 of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. The brief facts necessary for a disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as U.P.S.A. in the school under the management of the Guruvayur Devaswom on 12-06-2020 vide Ext.P7 appointment order. It would appear that in the selection process that followed Ext.P1 notification dated 16-10-2019 that invited applications for 2 posts of U.P.S.A in the school, the petitioner was ranked No.3 in a rank list prepared by the respondents. While the 2 posts that were notified were filled immediately thereafter, by appointing the persons ranked No.1 & 2 in the rank list, the Headmistress of the school made a request dated 14-12-2019 before the school management for filling up future vacancies also from the same rank list. Acting on the request of the Headmistress the managing committee extended the validity of the rank list by one year so that additional appointments could be made to 4 other vacancies that were to arise in the immediate future. It would appear that of the said 4 anticipated vacancies, one vacancy arose in the academic year 2019-2020 itself, consequent to the retirement of a U.P.S.A on 31-03-2020. The remaining 3 vacancies were expected to arise in the subsequent academic year ie.2020-2021.

(3.) The Administrator of the Guruvayur Devaswom proceeded to appoint 3 U.P.S.As by Ext.P7 order dated 12-07-2020. The appellant herein was one among the appointees and she was appointed to the first vacancy that arose on 31-03-2020. However, when the appellant sought permission from the Administrator/Manager of the school to join duty, she was served with Ext.P9 communication dated 26-02-2020 stating that Ext.P7 appointment order had been cancelled based on a resolution taken by the managing committee of the Guruvayoor Devaswom dated 15-06-2020, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P10 in the writ petition. It was impugning Ext.P9 communication, to the extent it affected the appellant herein, that W.P (C) No.16179/2020 was preferred. For the sake of completion of facts it would be necessary to note that the other two appointees had also approached this court aggrieved by Ext.P9 order through W.P (C) No.16927/2020.