MANAGER, VANNERI HIGH SCHOOL Vs. C.P. CHANDRAMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first of these appeals is by respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition; and the other appeal is by respondents 1 to 3. The fourth respondent is the Manager of a High School and the fifth respondent is a peon therein. Respondents 1 to 3 are the State of Kerala, the Director of Public Instruction and the District Educational Officer respectively.

(2.) The petitioner in the writ petition, viz., the first respondent in both the appeals, was qualified to be appointed a clerk; and when a temporary vacancy arose in the High School, she was appointed to that post on 28th June 1968. And she continued in that post till 28th February 1969 (for 8 months), when the vacancy terminated and she was discharged. A permanent vacancy for clerk arose on 22nd September 1970; and the Manager appointed the fifth respondent in the writ petition, who was then a peon working in the High School, as the clerk. Some time later, the petitioner happened to know about it; and she made a representation to the District Educational Officer to direct the Manager to appoint her relying on R.51A of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules read with R.7 of Chap.24B. The District Educational Officer gave a direction to the Manager asking him to appoint the petitioner. The petitioner also approached the Manager on the strength of this, when the Manager told her that the matter had been referred to the Director of Public Instruction for clarification. A few months thereafter, the petitioner was informed by the District Educational Officer (Ex. P7) that the appointment of the fifth respondent was approved in pursuance of a direction by the State Government. The petitioner then requested the District Educational Officer to give her a copy of the order of the State Government which was also furnished (Ex. P9). In the writ petition, the petitioner sought to quash Exs. P7 and P9; and a learned Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed those orders. In the appeals before us, one by the Manager and the aggrieved peon and the other by the Government and the Government officers, the correctness of the said decision of the Single Judge is being impugned.

(3.) At the time of admission of the first of these appeals, the counsel of the appellants therein drew our attention to another decision by the same learned Judge in T. O. Mary v. The Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction (O. P. No. 2068 of 1972), where an almost similar question was raised and the learned Judge seemingly took a different view. The counsel also brought to our notice the decision of a Division Bench consisting of one of us and another learned Judge in appeal against the said decision in T. O. Mary's case (W. A. No. 217 of 1972), where the Division Bench dismissed the appeal in limine confirming the decision of the Single Judge. Naturally, the Bench which admitted the appeal felt that there was something to be looked into; and now the appeals have come up for final hearings. (The second of the appeals was admitted later since that was against the same decision of the Single Judge).