MANAGER C L P SCHOOL Vs. MARY LEEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise from the judgment in O. P. 8613/1992. Respondents 1 and 4 in O. P. 8613/1992 arc the appellants in W. A. 175/1993. 5th respondent in that writ petition has preferred W. A. 184/1993. Issues that arise for consideration in these appeals are the same.

(2.) THE writ petitioner is working as a Lower Primary school Assistant in the school run by the first respondent. Her claim for promotion as Headmistress was not accepted by the Manager. Educational authorities requested the Manager, first respondent in the writ petition, to promote the rightful claimant, the writ petitioner, to the post of Headmistress without any delay. Since that was not complied with by the Manager, writ petitioner has approached this Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to respondents 1 to 3 to implement the above orders and to give petitioner regular promotion to the post of Headmistress with effect from 7-10-1991. Learned single Judge, by the impugned judgment, declared that the writ petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Headmistress in preference to the 4th respondent with effect from the last date of the Account Test (Lower) examination held in june, 1991.

(3.) FIRST respondent in the writ petition, the Manager of the school, filed a detailed counter affidavit contending that 4th respondent has 20 years of teaching experience and completed 50 years of age on 30-1-1992. Writ petitioner is the junior-most teacher, having 4 years of service only. When the vacancy to the post of Headmistress arose on 1-6-1990, 4th respondent was the senior-most hand in the school and no member of the teaching staff had the test qualification. 4th respondent is exempted from test qualification by virtue of completion of 50 years of age. Government directed the Deputy director to promote the writ petitioner as Headmistress of the school without hearing the 4th respondent. Writ petitioner being the junior-most hand in me school, has to vacate the post as a result of the staff fixation order consequent on the fall in the strength of students. Ext. P5 order is not valid.