HAZIL IVY PADUA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Original Petition, the petitioner prays for issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing Ext. P3 and also for a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the question of sanctioning the post of UPSA for the period from 15-6-1983 to 1-9-1983 against which the petitioner was appointed by the 5th respondent.

(2.) The circumstances which led to the filing of this Original Petition may be summarised as follows:

(3.) While matters stood as above, the 4th respondent issued an order dated 23-6-1990 directing the Manager to revert the petitioner to facilitate the promotion of the 6th respondent on the ground that the petitioner was junior to 6th respondent. Since the order was passed without notice, the petitioner filed O.P. No. 5821 of 1990. This court quashed the order on the ground that she was reverted without notice and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the 4th respondent. Ext. P2 is the judgment. After Ext. P2 judgment, 6th respondent filed a revision before the Director of Public Instruction, who is the 2nd respondent herein on 3-7-1990. Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext. P2, the District Educational Officer issued notice to both the parties and ultimately held that he had no power to review. He also noticed that a revision filed before the Director of Public Instruction is pending. The 6th respondent sent a reminder to the Director of Public Instruction on 17-2-1990 requesting to dispose of the revision. Thereafter, the 6th respondent filed O.P. No. 3522 of 1991 before this court and this court as per judgment dated 27-3-1991 directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the revisions after hearing all the parties. Accordingly, the Director of Public Instruction afforded opportunities to all the parties to be heard and passed Ext P3 order dated 18-6-1991 holding that by virtue of her seniority, 6th respondent was entitled to promotion and therefore she shall be nationally promoted with effect from 15-7-1987. The 2nd respondent set aside the appointment of petitioner as High School Assistant and directed to recover the difference of pay and allowances from the maintenance grant of the school.