ABEY DANIEL Vs. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issues involved in both these cases are closely inter -linked with each other. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.27462/2012 was appointed as the Principal of St.Gregorios Higher Secondary School, Kottarakkara and is continuing in office with effect from 1.4.2008. According to the petitioner, he is the senior most qualified hand, who came to be appointed as the Principal, pursuant to a valid selection process, vide Ext.P1. It is also stated that, he will attain the age of superannuation of 56 years in the year 2021 and as such, can continue till such time. But approval of the appointment was given by the departmental authorities only till 31.03.2013 and as such, the petitioner has approached the Manager and the departmental authorities for causing the approval of the appointment to be extended till his retirement. The petitioner has also been given to understand that the Manager has already preferred a representation, as borne by Ext.P6 in this regard, before the Regional Deputy Director and since nothing transpired in the positive, the petitioner has moved the first respondent invoking Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A KER, by filing Ext.P7 revision petition dated 11.2.2011, followed by Ext.P8 reminder dated 5.11.2012. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to direct the Government to pass appropriate orders on Exts.P7 and P8 within a reasonable time.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.25603/2012 contends that, he happens to be much senior to the third respondent therein (who happens to the writ petitioner in the other case), despite which the third respondent came to be selected and appointed as the Principal. It is also contended that, no seniority list has been produced before this Court and that the third respondent is not having the requisite extent of teaching experience. Taking note of the fact that the tenure of appointment for a period of 'five' years ordered as per Exts.P1 and P2 therein will come to an end on 31.03.2013, a proper selection has to be conducted considering the claim and eligibility of the persons like the petitioner, who stand on a much higher footing than the third respondent. But the petitioner is given to understand that steps have been going on to have the service of the third respondent extended which made him to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition for causing Ext.P6 representation preferred by the Manager before the Regional Deputy Director to be considered and disposed within a reasonable time.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State/Departmental authorities submits that, the selection and appointment of the writ petitioner in W.P.(C)No.27462/2012 was pursuant to the proceedings finalised by a validly constituted Selection Committee and that too in the year 2008. There was absolutely no challenge whatsoever from any corner during the past five years and as such, it is not open for the petitioner in the other case i.e. W.P.(C) No.25603/2012 to turn around at this distance of time, challenging the course and proceedings. The learned Government Pleader also submits that, approval of the appointment of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27462/2012 was confined to 31.03.2013, in view of the fact that the Manager has sought for approval only till such time and that the State/Departmental authority cannot be blamed under any circumstance.