GEETHA P. I. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 05/01/2007. Petitioner in WP (C) No. 34410 of 2006 was appointed as headmaster with effect from 01/04/2004 in a retirement vacancy. There was delay on the part of the management in applying for approval of appointment of the petitioner as headmaster. That delay was condoned by Ext. P3 order. Nobody objected his appointment as headmaster till he retired. He retired with effect from 31/03/2005. By Ext. P4 there was a direction by the Director of Public Instructions to approve the appointment if he is otherwise eligible. Since there was no rival claimant at the time of his appointment or even before his retirement, we are of the opinion that his appointment ought to have been approved as he is an eligible candidate. It is true that after the retirement, a revision petition was filed by the sixth respondent stating that she had a superior claim because of her graduate service. We are of the opinion that a representation was filed by the sixth respondent for the first time only on 15/10/2006 whereas petitioner retired from service on 31/03/2005. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that even if there is superior claim of the sixth respondent in view of the absence of any objection, appointment of the petitioner in WP (C) No. 34410 of 2006 ought to have been approved and consequential benefits ought to have been given to him. With regard to the superior claim of the graduate teacher, we shall consider the same while disposing of the writ appeals.

(2.) THE challenge in the writ appeals is regarding the appointment to the vacancies of headmaster which arose due to the retirement of the petitioner in WP (C) No. 34410 of 2006, that is, with effect from 01/04/2005. WP (C) No. 34551 of 2006 was filed by an undergraduate teacher. She got regular appointment in the school on 06/12/1983. She is a TTC holder and passed predegree and account test. She had approved temporary service prior to her regular appointment. The sixth respondent joined the service on 02/06/1986 and she is a graduate and also possesses B.Ed. and account test (lower). The sole question is whether she is entitled to preferential appointment as headmaster than the petitioner who was a TTC holder. Admittedly, sixth respondent was appointed only on 02/06/1986. R.45, Chap.XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules as it then stood on the date of occurrence of the vacancy reads as follows: