T.P.RADHAMONY Vs. N.THULASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 6 and 7 in W.P.(C).No.3402 of 2013 are in appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.02.2017, allowing the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein challenging Ext.P5 order of the District Educational Officer, Kottayam and Ext.P10 order of the Government.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are the following : The appellants as well as the first respondent entered service as Upper Primary School Assistants (UPSAs) in the High School Parippu, Kottayam District. The sixth respondent is the Manager of the School. On 01.04.2009, a vacancy of High School Assistant (HSA) in Mathematics arose in the School. The first respondent was appointed to the said vacancy as per Ext.P3. She is a person who had been appointed as an HSA earlier on 15.07.1998. The appointment was approved on 28.09.1998, with effect from 15.07.1998. She worked in the said post, till the year 2005. During 2005-06, one post of HSA (Maths) was abolished. The first respondent was thereupon sought to be reverted. She approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.22570 of 2005 and continued as an HSA on the strength of an interim order granted by this Court. While so, on 31.03.2009 one Sri.Govindan Namboodiri retired and a regular vacancy of HSA (Maths) arose. The first respondent was appointed to the said vacancy with effect from 01.04.2009.

(3.) According to the appellants, they are seniors to the first respondent in the cadre of UPSAs. Therefore, they raised objections contending that they were entitled to be promoted in the place of the first respondent, they being claimants under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 ('KER' for short). The said objection was accepted by the District Educational Officer as per Ext.P5. Though the first respondent challenged Ext.P5 order in revision, as per Ext.P10, the revision was dismissed. It was aggrieved by Exts.P5 and P10 that, the first respondent had filed the writ petition.