R.BIJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.19703 of 2019 filed this intra court appeal under Sec. 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dtd. 10/7/2023, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P3 to P5 orders and to declare that the appellant is senior to the 6th respondent as per Rule 37 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 ('KER' for short), and therefore entitled to be promoted to the post of Headmaster in preference to the 6th respondent.

(2.) The appellant entered service as a High School Assistant ('HSA' for short) (Natural science) in the school of the 5th respondent on 4/6/2007. The 6th respondent was also appointed as HSA (Mathematics) in the same school on the same date. The date of birth of the appellant is 16/5/1973, and that of the 6th respondent is 28/5/1974. According to the appellant, since the 6th respondent is younger than the appellant, she is to be treated as senior to the 6th respondent as stipulated in Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIVA of the KER. When the 5th respondent prepared a provisional seniority list showing the appellant as Junior to the 6th respondent, the appellant submitted objections to the provisional seniority list. She has also filed a complaint before the 4th respondent. By Ext.P2 order dtd. 17/4/2017, the 4th respondent declared the appellant as Senior to the 6th respondent. Challenging Ext.P2 order, the 6th respondent filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent Deputy Director of Education. By Ext.P3 order dtd. 27/6/2017, the 3rd respondent allowed the appeal holding that the 6th respondent is Senior to the appellant, stating the reason that the 6th respondent had worked in the U.P Sec. of the school from 23/11/1998 to 31/3/1999 in a leave vacancy and hence her first appointment was prior to the appointment of the appellant. The appellant challenged Ext.P3 order before the 2nd respondent Director of Public Instructions and by Ext.P4 order dtd. 16/9/2017, the 2nd respondent confirmed the finding in Ext.P3 order. The appellant again filed a revision before the 1st respondent under Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA of the KER. However, the revision was dismissed by Ext.P5 order dtd. 29/3/2019. Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court with the writ petition.

(3.) Respondents 1, 4, and 6 filed separate counter affidavits dtd. 20/1/2020, 19/9/2022, and 6/10/2021, respectively, in the writ petition opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition. Along with the respective counter affidavits, the fourth respondent produced Ext.R4(a), and the 6th respondent produced Exts.R6(a) to R6(c) documents. With an affidavit dtd. 26/10/2021, the 5th respondent produced Exts.R5(A) to R5(C) documents.