POULOSE Vs. ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At first blush, the assertion of the petitioner in this case that he is entitled to pay and benefits available to the post he is serving, from a date anterior to which he was appointed and that he deserves to be paid for the period during which he had not worked, appeared to be capricious and incongruous. However on closer scrutiny, and on a deeper inspection of his claim, founded on certain peculiar circumstances as I will presently record, I am drawn to veer to conclude in his favour thus allowing a seemingly illogical and extravagant proposition.

(2.) The factual underpinning of the petitioner's claim is fastened on the action of the Manager of a school, in which he is serving, in denying him promotion to the post of Head Master in preference to another teacher, who the petitioner claims was not deserving.

(3.) The petitioner claims that he was the sole qualified Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA) deserving promotion as Head Master, but that his claim was overlooked by the Manager when he appointed another person who was not so qualified. The petitioner represented against this before the educational authorities who did not take timely action. He, therefore, approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.15963/2004, which was filed on 27.05.2004 and disposed of by judgment of this Court dated 28.05.2004 with direction to the competent authority to consider the rival claims.