CATHERINE Vs. MANAGER, H.S. MUNDOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash Ext. P-3 and writ of mandamus directing respondents to approve petitioner's appointment in the vacancy which arose on 20th June 1983 and to appoint her in the vacancy which arose on 22nd July 1983.

(2.) Petitioner is a trained graduate teacher working in the upper primary section of the Mundoor High School since 1978. Second respondent is a U.P.S. Assistant in the school, senior to the petitioner. First respondent is the Manager of the school. In the High School section of the school a leave vacancy in the post of High School Assistant (Social Studies) arose on 1st June 1981. At that time though the second respondent was senior most U.P.S. Assistant in the subject, he was not qualified to be promoted as H.S. Assistant. Therefore his junior, petitioner who was qualified, was temporarily promoted as H.S.A. from 1st June 1981 to 4th September 1981 and the promotion was duly approved by the third respondent, District Educational Officer as seen in Ext. P-1. The teacher who was on leave extended the leave period. Meanwhile the second respondent had become qualified for promotion as H. S. A. Assistant. The first respondent allowed the petitioner to continue in the post of H.S.A, but for this action the third respondent declined to grant approval. The first respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education and the same having been dismissed, preferred a revision which is said to be pending. Another temporary vacancy arose and the petitioner was posted to that vacancy on 20th June 1983 and the post continued up to 16th August 1983. The third respondent declined to approve the promotion as seen in Ext. P-3. A new post of H.S.A. (Social Studies) was sanctioned with effect from 22nd July 1983. The first respondent meanwhile reverted the petitioner as U.P.S. Assistant. Apprehending that the second respondent was likely to be promoted to that vacancy, petitioner submitted Ext. P-2 representation to the first respondent and thereupon filed this original petition for appropriate reliefs.

(3.) The petitioner rests her case on R.43 and 51A of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules (for short, the rules). Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has a preferential claim under R.51A and in any event, even if R.43 governs the case, it must be taken that the second respondent lost his seniority over the petitioner when the petitioner was first promoted temporarily in 1981. On that ground petitioner must be deemed to be senior when the vacancy arose on 20th June 1983 and 22nd July 1983 and she was entitled to be promoted even under R.43.