CORPORATE MANAGER Vs. PHILOMINA SEBASTIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 4th respondent Corporate Manager is in appeal against the judgment dated 09.01.2017 of the learned Single Judge, allowing W.P.(C) No.9106/2016. The first respondent is the writ petitioner. Respondents 2 to 5 are the other respondents in the writ petition. The dispute relates to the appointment as a Higher Secondary School Teacher (hereinafter referred to as 'HSST (Mal)' for short). As per the judgment appealed against, the learned Single Judge has directed the first respondent to be appointed as HSST (Mal) with effect from 14.07.2014. Respondents 2 to 4 have been further directed to compute the loss caused to the first respondent on account of denial of appointment to her by the appellant and the appellant has been held liable to compensate her for such loss. The appellant is aggrieved by the said judgment.

(2.) The short facts necessary for our perusal are the following:

(3.) During the pendency of the writ petition, the first respondent was appointed as HSST (Mal) as per Ext.P9 order dated 01.06.2016. However, the said appointment was rejected on the ground that the same was not made on the recommendation of a selection committee. It was contended by the first respondent that the action of the appellant in constituting a selection committee itself was violative of the provisions contained in Rule 5 of Chapter XXXII of the KER, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'KER' for short). The writ petition was contested by the appellant. According to the appellant, the selection was made on the basis of an interview on the ground of suitability. Since the appointment of the fifth respondent was not approved, the first respondent was appointed on 01.06.2016. However, she was later reverted as an HSA (Mal) on 15.06.2016.