P G ALEYAMMA Vs. KUNJAMMA JACOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Entitlement to the post of Headmistress of an aided High School is the dispute arising for consideration in these writ appeals by the same person. Both the contestant filed writ petitions. The appellant filed O.P.No. 12847/01, when she apprehended that the service that she had rendered while as a protected teacher would not be counted for the purpose of seniority and promotion. Any how, when the vacancy arose on 1.4.02, the Manager appointed her as the Headmistress. This was objected to by the first respondent in the Writ Appeal No. 1984/02, the other teacher, who claimed to be senior to the appellant. Her objection was considered by the District Educational Officer (DEO) and was over ruled as per Ext.P5. This was impugned in O.P.No. 13345/02 by her. Both these writ petitions were heard together by a learned single Judge. He found that Ext.P5 was bad and that the first respondent teacher was entitled to the post of Headmistress as against the appellant. The original petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed and the preferred by the first respondent teacher was allowed. Therefore, these two writ appeals by the petitioner in O.P.No. 12837/01, who is also the contesting respondent in O.P.No. 13345/02.

(2.) When another Division Bench heard these writ appeals a question was posed as to whether service rendered by a teacher, - in this case the appellant-, while on protection, could be counted for the purpose of seniority. The Division Bench felt that the point was covered conflictingly in the judgment reported in Rahelamma v. State of Kerala (1997(2)KLT 429) and in the judgment reported in Usha Devi v. State of Kerala (2002(1)KLT 615). Therefore the matter was referred to a Full Bench. The Full Bench noticing another Full Bench decision reported in Sasidharan Nair v. State of Kerala (2003(1) KLT 998) found that the issue posed by the Division Bench for consideration by the Full Bench did not arise and therefore, sent back the appeal for consideration by the Division Bench. It is thus these appeals are before us.

(3.) As already mentioned, the issue involved is with regard to the counting of the service rendered by the appellant as a protected teacher for considering her to the post of headmistress in preference to the first respondent teacher. In order to consider this issue, the service details of the incumbents have to be born in mind.