VIJAYALEKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Essentially, the question posed herein is regarding the date of retirement of an incumbent in the post of Headmaster, the consequential filling up of the vacancy by promoting the fourth respondent and other allied matters. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts. P6 and P9 orders wherein the view taken is that the fourth respondent was rightly promoted as Headmistress. The circumstances leading to the dispute are the following: Prior to the promotion of the fourth respondent, one Shri K. Prasannakumar, was the Headmaster of the school. His date of attainment of superannuation on completion of 55 years, was 24.11.2010. Since the said date is one coming within the course of the academic year, he continued upto 31.3.2011 in terms of the relevant provisions of the Kerala Education Rules, (for short K. E. R. ), viz. Rule 62 of Chapter XIV-A and Rule 60(c) of Part I of Kerala Service Rules (for short K. S. R. ), according to the petitioner. But the petitioner maintains that the eligibility for promotion will have to be reckoned as on 24.11.2010, the date on which he attained the age of 55 years and if that be so, the petitioner had to be promoted. But ignoring her claim, the fourth respondent was promoted from 1.4.2011. The claim of the petitioner is based on the premise that among the seniormost teachers, she had acquired the qualification as on the date of occurrence of vacancy. Accordingly, she claimed the promotion, but the Manager rejected it as per Ext. P2. The Manager relied upon the Government orders, which came into force, concerning the unification of retirement. Ext. P4 is the copy of G. O. (P) No. 154/09/Fin. dated 24.4.2009 which, according to the petitioner, is not applicable in the case of aided school teachers. This was the point raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority who rejected her appeal as per Ext. P6 order. Finally, the matter reached the Government and the Government also concurred with the view, in Ext. P9. In a nutshell, the view taken by the Government is that the benefit of extended period of service due to unification of retirement given to Government employees, has been extended to aided school teachers also.

(2.) Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Abraham Vakkanal, learned Government Pleader Smt. Lowsy A. and learned counsel for the fourth and fifth respondents, Shri John Joseph.

(3.) Going by the date of attainment of superannuation of the fourth respondent as per the rules, she will be retiring on 31.3.2012. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner is not interested in cancellation of the promotion granted to the fourth respondent, the next arising vacancy should be given to the petitioner. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the attempt of the Manager is to give the same to the fifth respondent on the plea that the fifth respondent is senior to the petitioner and is qualified.