BETTY P ANTO Vs. MATHEW THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.41092 of 2023. The appellant in W.A.No.505 of 2024 is the 5th respondent in the writ petition. W.A.No.507 of 2024 is filed by the 4th respondent, Manager. The 1st respondent in both these appeals is the writ petitioner. We refer to the parties as they are arrayed in W.A.No.505 of 2024.

(2.) We will start with the relevant facts. The appellant was appointed as Higher Secondary School Teacher on 24/8/1998 in Syrian Christian Higher Secondary School, Chellackadu, Ranni. The 1st respondent also joined service on the same day as a Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior). He was later appointed as HSST on 15/7/1999.

(3.) In Ext.P1 seniority list as on 1/1/2018 the 1st respondent was shown as senior to the appellant. The said seniority list was circulated among the teachers and the appellant as well as the 1st respondent had signed the same. Thus, the said seniority list was well within the knowledge of both parties. It is pleaded by the appellant that she pointed out the anomaly to the then Manager and sought correction. Later, she submitted a representation to the 4th respondent on 21/1/2022 pointing out that she was appointed as HSST earlier to the appointment of the 1st respondent to the said post and therefore her name should have been shown at Serial No.3 in Ext.P1 seniority list. The management admits that the said representation is available in their files. Later, the management published another seniority list as on 1/1/2023 which has been produced as Ext.P10. In Ext.P10, the appellant has been included as Rank No.2 in seniority while the 1st respondent has been put in the fifth position in the order of seniority. The 1st respondent did not sign the said seniority list. When it was circulated it was noted that he has not signed as he has objection in the matter. He submitted Ext.P2 representation to the 4th respondent against re-determination of seniority. He thereafter approached this Court when the Manager gave charge of Principal to the appellant. He sought declaration that he is senior than the appellant in the light of Ext.P1 seniority list and direction to appoint him as the Principal in the light of the decision in Pavithran v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KLT 20 (F.B.)]. Some other reliefs were also sought. The learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition (W.P.(C)No.19180/2023) on 14/6/2023. The learned Single Judge issued a direction to the Regional Deputy Director to consider and pass orders on the representation of the 1st respondent, taking into account the judgment of this Court in Pavithran's case (supra). The appellant herein filed R.P.No.678 of 2023, aggrieved by the judgment in W.P.(C)No.19180 of 2023 on the ground that the judgment was delivered without hearing her and the Manager of the school. The learned Single Judge clarified in the review petition that the matter was not decided on merits and disposed the review petition on 4/7/2023 directing the 3rd respondent to give one more opportunity of hearing to the review petition, Manager and the writ petitioner before passing final order. In compliance with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.19180/2023 and R.P.No.678 of 2023, the third respondent considered the issue and passed Ext.P5 order on 7/7/2023. The 3rd respondent rejected the request of the 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent stated in Ext.P5 that the appellant was appointed as HSST on 24/8/1998; whereas the 1st respondent was appointed on the same date as HSST (Junior). It was also noted that the 1st respondent became HSST only on 15/7/1999. The provisions of KER regarding fixation of seniority were noted and it was concluded by the 3rd respondent that the appellant is senior than the 1st respondent. The seniority list prepared by the Manager was approved by the 3rd respondent.