SREEREKHA R Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a teacher, commenced her continuous service as HST (English) from 13/7/2007 onwards in S.N.M.Higher Secondary School Purakkad, Alappuzha district, an aided School under the 5th respondent management. Her appointment was approved as per Ext. P1 dtd. 13/7/2007. She passed the departmental test in the K.E. Act and the Rules and Account Test (Lower) in July 2020, which is evidenced by Ext.P2. The certificate issued by the Public Service Commission showing that the petitioner has passed the test in the K.E.Act and Rules is produced as Ext.P3. She contends that she has more than 12 years of continuous graduate service and also a pass in the test in the K.E.Act and Rules and also a pass in the Account Test (Lower) therefore, she is fully qualified to be promoted as Headmistress on 1/6/2021 when the vacancy arose as per rule 44-A (1) of chapter 14 of K.E.R. The true copy of the approved seniority list of the school as of 1/1/2021 issued by the D.E.O., Alappuzha, is produced and marked as Ext.P4. The petitioner contends that when the regular vacancy of Headmistress arose on 1/6/2021 due to the retirement of then Headmistress Smt. Ambili, the petitioner was the senior-most and the fully qualified to be promoted as Headmistress. The petitioner had requested the Manager on 24/5/2021 to grant her promotion as Headmistress. However, the Manager did not consider the request of the petitioner and appointed one Ushas S. as Headmistress, who did not have the test qualification according to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved the D.E.O., Alappuzha, vide her appeal dtd. 2/6/2021 and also to request the Manager to appoint her as the Headmistress by cancelling the promotion granted to the 6th respondent Ushas S. The D.E.O., Alappuzha, vide order dtd. 12/9/2021, declined the approval to the appointment of Ushas S. and held that the petitioner is the person to be appointed and considered for promotion, as she is test qualified and as per G.O(MS) No.157/2015/G.Edn. dtd. 10/6/2015. The said order is marked as Ext.P5. The Manager had preferred an appeal against the order of the D.E.O. before the D.D.E., Alappuzha, which was also rejected as per Ext.P6 order dtd. 26/3/2022. The revision preferred by the Manager before the D.D.E. also rejected the D.G.E. by directing the Manager to appoint the petitioner as Headmistress from 1/6/2021. A true copy of the said order is produced as Ext.P7. The Manager had also preferred a revision against Ext. P7 before the Government, which was also rejected by Ext. P8 order dtd. 8/9/2023. Alleging that the Manager has not implemented Ext.P8 order, the teacher has preferred W.P(C) No.30636/2023.

(2.) W.P(C) No.30925/2023 is filed by the Manager and the teachers who were promoted as Headmistress, challenging the appointment of the petitioner herein, mainly on two grounds. One is that she did not have 12 years' continuous service and that she did not commence her service on 30/6/2007 as contended by the petitioner and that the revised seniority list issued by the Manager shows that the petitioner commenced her regular service only in the year 2012.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner in 30925/2023, Sri. M. K. Pradeep Kumar, arguing based on the seniority so assigned after the dispute started, submitted that the petitioner did not have 12 years of continuous service. He also relied on the judgment of this Court in Rajamma P.R. v. Manager, St.George High School and others [2012(3) KHC 27] to hold that only 12 years of her service after being regularly appointed can be considered within the meaning of Rule 44-A of Chapter 14A of K.E.R. The learned counsel for the teacher in W.P(C) No.30636/2023 argued that all the authorities had consistently and concurrently found the claim of the petitioner, and there is no justification for the Manager not to implement the said order.