POORNIMA Vs. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and the 7th respondent were appointed as HSAs in a School under the 4th respondent Corporate Manager. The 7th respondent was appointed for the first time on 22.12.1999, for a spell from 22.12.1999 to 23.2.2000 and the first appointment of the petitioner was on 22.6.2000, for a spell from 22.6.2000 to 1.11.2000. It is stated that the appointment of the petitioner as above was approved by the competent statutory authority on 22.6.2000 while the question regarding the approval of the appointment of the 7th respondent as above continued to be undecided for quite some time. Ultimately, the statutory authority approved the appointment of the 7th respondent by order dated 20.3.2004.

(2.) Going by the relevant Rule in Chapter XIVA K.E.R., the approval of appointment of the 7th respondent granted as per order dt. 20.3.2004 will relate back to 22.12.1999 and the approved service of the petitioner will be from 22.6.2000. Therefore, it goes without saying that the 7th respondent had, to her credit, an earlier approved service than that of the petitioner:

(3.) By Ext.P5, the Director of Public Instructions disposed of the dispute between the parties holding that the 7th respondent was the one entitled to be appointed in preference to the petitioner as against a vacancy to which the petitioner was making claim before the DPI. It is this order dt. 23.2.2004 that is under challenge in this Writ Petition.