SHOBHANA Vs. MANAGER, CHOLAPURATH A. U. P. SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed by the first respondent as Hindi teacher in his school. She continued in the above school till 14.7.1986. The above appointment was approved by the second respondent. The petitioner's services were terminated for want of vacancy due to division fall, An Additional post of Junior Hindi Teacher was sanctioned with effect from 15.7.87 by the second respondent for the academic year 1987-88. According to the petitioner she was fully qualified to be appointed to the above post. She was also entitled to get preferential treatment under R.51A of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. But the first respondent did not issue any appointment order to the petitioner. Instead of that, the first respondent appointed on K.P. Lilly. The petitioner filed Ext. P6 representation before the first respondent requesting to appoint her in the above vacancy. The petitioner also filed a representation before the second respondent. The second respondent, after considering the above representation, refused to approve the appointment of Smt. K.P.Lilly, Accordingly here services were terminated. Still the first respondent did not appoint the petitioner in the above vacancy. According to the petitioner, the above vacancy continued in the year 1988-89 also.

(2.) The petitioner filed O.S. No. 1085/87 before the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode praying for a declaration that she has a preferential claim for appointment to the post of Additional Junior Hindi teacher sanctioned by the second respondent in the school of the first respondent. The above suit was dismissed by the learned Munsiff on the ground that the petitioner had an equal and efficacious remedy before the educational authorities under the provisions of the K.E.R, and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction prayed for. It was also made clear in the judgment of the learned Munsiff that this would not prejudice the rights of the parties to raise their contentions before the educational authorities. The petitioner filed Ext. P7 representation before the third respondent. By Ext. P8 the second respondent informed the third respondent that the petitioner is the rightful claimant to the post sanctioned in July 1987. It is also stated that the post of Hindi Teacher was vacant from 1987-88 onwards.

(3.) This Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner from 1.6.87 onwards and to grant all other service benefits.