V B SAJITHA Vs. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an UPSA in the aided school managed by the 4th respondent. The post of Headmistress of the school fell vacant on 31.3.2008. The 4th respondent appointed Smt. P.K. Rabia as Headmistress with effect from 1.4.2008. The said Smt. P.K. Rabia relinquished her claim for appointment as Headmistress. In the said vacancy, the 4th respondent appointed the 5th respondent, who is junior to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in the seniority list of teachers of the school, the petitioner is serial No.22 and the 5th respondent is serial No.27. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the appointment of the 5th respondent in preference to the petitioner as Headmistress by the 4th respondent is illegal and unsustainable. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) THE 4th respondent takes the stand that the school being a minority school, the 4th respondent is entitled to chose anyone among the qualified teachers of the school for appointment as Headmistress. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the appointment of the 5th respondent as Headmistress is the contention raised by the 4th respondent.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner points out that even where an earlier decision of this Court operated for some time, the decision rendered later on would have retrospective effect clarifying the legal position, which was not earlier correctly understood. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the decision in Paulose's case operates retrospectively and therefore, the appointments made in 2008 would also be squarely covered by that decision. The petitioner relies on the decision of a learned Judge of this Court in Kerala Agro-Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Amminikutty Amma [1997 KHC 480] and a Division Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Asst. Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008 KHC 5282] in support of these contentions.