HEMA M Vs. R.P. SUBASH SHYLAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 3/3/2022 in W.P.(C) No.6969 of 2022. The appellant is not a party to the writ petition and the appeal is preferred with the leave of the court.

(2.) The first respondent was appointed as Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST) in Physics in B.E.M. Girls Higher Secondary School, an aided school on 17/9/2001. Ext.P1(a) is the order of appointment. The said appointment was not approved by the competent authority viz, the fourth respondent, the Director of Higher Secondary Education on the ground that the B.Ed. Degree obtained by her is not one issued after a regular course of study. Ext.P2(b) is the communication issued by the fourth respondent to the Manager of the school in this regard. The first respondent did not challenge Ext.P2(b) decision. Instead, she underwent M.Ed. course and thereupon approached the Government for orders approving her appointment as HSST on the strength of the M.Ed degree obtained by her. On the said representation, the Government directed the fourth respondent to approve the appointment of the first respondent with effect from the date of publication of the result of the M.Ed course undertaken by her. Ext.P4(a) is the communication issued by the Government in this regard. Based on Ext.P4(a) communication and the clarification given by the management that the appellant who was appointed in the meanwhile as HSST junior in Physics in the school and who was entitled to be promoted to the post of HSST in the vacancy in which the first respondent was initially appointed has relinquished her claim, the fourth respondent approved the appointment of the first respondent as HSST in Physics in the school with effect from 22/6/2005. Ext.P5 is the order issued by the fourth respondent in this regard. After about 15 years, on 29/9/2020, the first respondent preferred a representation to the fourth respondent seeking orders to approve her appointment with effect from 17/9/2001 itself, modifying Ext.P2(b) decision. Ext.P10(a) is the said representation. Ext.P10(a) was not considered by the fourth respondent. The first respondent, in the circumstances, approached this court in the above writ petition and the same was disposed of directing the fourth respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10(a) representation, after affording the first respondent an opportunity of hearing. It is aggrieved by the said judgment that the appellant has come up with this appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the first respondent.