S. SHAMNA BEEVI Vs. S. KABEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing W.P. (C) No. 37186/2009 filed by the 1st respondent challenging Exts. P3 and P7 orders passed by the Director and the Government respectively, upholding the claim of the appellant to be given seniority over the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent commenced his service as HSST (Malayalam) with effect from 26.6.2001 in Nochat Higher Secondary School, Perambra in Kozhikode. Subsequently, he got a mutual transfer to the school, of which, the 5th respondent is the Manager, where the appellant was working as HSST (Junior) (Malayalam). Accordingly, the 1st respondent joined the school on 9.11.2004 and since then, he has been working as HSS (Malayalam). He was treated as senior to the appellant, but, however, on a complaint made by the appellant, the Director issued Ext. P3 order, where he took the stand that since the mutual inter -management transfer was on condition that the 1st respondent should serve as junior to the junior most teacher in the new management, the appellant is entitled to be treated as senior and that the 1st respondent should be treated as junior most. Against this order, the 1st respondent filed an appeal, which was rejected by the 2nd respondent.

(2.) IN the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge has accepted the contention that although in Ext. P2 order there was a specific condition that the 1st respondent should be treated as the junior most, such a condition would only render him the junior most in the category in which he joined in the new school and not in any category below that. It is impugning this judgment, this appeal is filed.

(3.) ALTHOUGH the learned senior counsel for the appellant relied on the aforesaid condition in Ext. P2 order allowing the mutual transfer, which states that the 1st respondent should serve as junior to the junior most teacher in the management, in our view such a condition cannot render the 1st respondent junior most in any category other than the category in which he has joined pursuant to the said transfer. It was, therefore, that since 9.11.2004, when he joined under the new school, he was treated as senior to the appellant and he continued as HSST since then. This finding of the learned Single Judge, in our view, does not suffer from any illegality justifying interference.