M.HONEY Vs. MANAGER, KOPPARETHU HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 22/12/2020 in W.P.(C) No.28642 of 2019. The appellant was the fifth respondent in the writ petition. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, as they appear in the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner is the Manager of an aided Higher Secondary School. The Higher Secondary sec. of the school was sanctioned from the year 2014-2015. Since there were no qualified hands then in the school for appointment by transfer as Higher Secondary School Teacher [HSST] or Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior), the petitioner took steps to appoint the required number of teachers from the open market. It is stated that there were three posts of HSST and four posts of HSST (Junior) in the school. A selection was conducted and appointments were made by the petitioner to the said posts from the ranked lists prepared by the Selection Committee. The fourth respondent secured first rank in the selection for appointment to the post of HSST and respondents 5 and 6 secured ranks 3 and 2 respectively in the said selection. The petitioner appointed the fourth respondent on 5/1/2018 and respondents 5 and 6 on 6/1/2018. The said appointments were approved with effect from the respective dates of appointment in terms of Ext.P2 order issued by the third respondent.

(3.) The fifth respondent preferred an appeal against Ext.P2 order before the second respondent seeking a direction to the Manager to submit a revised proposal for approval of her appointment with effect from 5/1/2018. On the said appeal, the second respondent took the view that insofar as three vacancies were existing at the time of preparation of the select list and since respondents 4 to 6 were included in the same select list, they should have been appointed on the same day itself and consequently directed the third respondent to approve the appointment of respondents 5 and 6 as HSST in the school with effect from 5/1/2018. Ext.P3 is the order issued by the second respondent in this regard. Although Ext.P3 order was challenged by the petitioner in revision before the Government, the same was affirmed by the Government as per Ext.P5. In the meanwhile, the fourth respondent being the earliest appointee to the post of HSST in the school, the petitioner appointed her as Principal-in-Charge of the School. Exts.P3 and P5 orders were under challenge in the writ petition.