A S SREEDEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in O.P. 16007 of 1995 is an Upper Primary School Assistant, now working as Headmistress in-charge of S.M.U.P.School, Chambakkara, in Kottayam District, She was put in-charge of the Headmistress by the 2nd respondent on 31- 3-1994 on a retirement vacancy. Manager of the school forwarded the appointment order to the 4th respondent, the Assistant Educational Officer for approval. Fifth respondent is a graduate teacher who objected the appointment. Fourth respondent passed Ext. P2 order dated 29-4-1994 holding that the 5th respondent is a fully qualified graduate teacher and she has preferential right to be appointed as Headmistress of the School. The appointment of the petitioner was held to be irregular. Consequently the request for approval was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, Manager preferred an appeal in May 1994 before the 3rd respondent who confirmed the order of the Assistant Educational Officer. Manager then filed a revision petition dated 19-10-1994 before the Government. Fifth respondent however filed O.P.4760 of 1994 before this court praying for a writ of mandamus to implement Exts.P2 and P3 orders. An order was passed by this court on 19-12-1994 directing the Government to dispose of the revision petition filed by the Manager of the School. Revision petition was disposed of by Ext. P4 order dated 14-9-1995 holding that the 5th respondent is fully qualified to be appointed as Headmistress and that the appointment of the petitioner as Teacher-in-charge is illegal and the same was set aside. Aggrieved by the above mentioned orders, petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

(2.) Petitioner is the senior most under graduate U.P.S.A .in S.M.U.P.School According to the petitioner, 5th respondent is not qualified to be appointed as Headmistress of the school under R.45C of Chap.14A of the K.E.R. since the 5th respondent did not have continuous service equal to half the period of service of the senior most under graduate teacher. Petitioner has got 9 years, 9 months and 21 days service as on 1-4-1984 and she has got continuous service from 11-6-1984. According to the petitioner 5th respondent does not possess continuous service equal to half the period of service of the senior most under graduate teacher.

(3.) It is agreed by the counsel on both sides that the provision to be considered in the instant case is R.45 of Chap.14A of the K.E.R. and not R.45C. It was also stated by them that the authorities also proceeded as if the matter comes under R.45 of the K.E.R. and not R.45C. R.45 of the K.E.R, reads as follows: