ANITHA DEVI K Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in this writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4.

(3.) The petitioner was initially appointed as H.S.A in the 4th respondent's school on 26.1987 and as H.S.S.T Sanskrit with effect from 24.8.1998. The petitioner challenges the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Principal of the school. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent had been appointed as H.S.S.T (Junior) in economics on 14.9.1998. He was thereafter appointed as H.S.S.T in 1999. The petitioner contends that she had been held to be entitled to all the benefits of full time H.S.S.T in Sanskrit with effect from 24.8.1998. It is contended that by virtue of her appointment as H.S.S.T Sanskrit with effect from 24.8.1998 and the approval of her appointment as such by Ext.P7 order, the petitioner is entitled to seniority over the 3rd respondent. It is therefore contended that the petitioner is the better claimant for appointment to the post of Principal which arose in the school on 1.4.2016. The petitioner relies on Ext.P5 judgment and Ext.P7 order of approval issued by the Director of Higher Secondary Education to contend that her appointment as H.S.S.T Sanskrit from 24.8.1998 stands approved. It is therefore contended that going by Ext.P11 seniority list, the petitioner is shown as senior to the 3rd respondent and is therefore clearly entitled for appointment as Principal.