NAVEEN G S Vs. P B RAJALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The seventh respondent is in appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge finally disposing of W.P. (C) No. 16715 of 2017. The first respondent is the writ petitioner. The first respondent had filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The claim of the first respondent was that, she was eligible to have been appointed as Training School Assistant (TSA) (Maths) at the T.D. Teachers Training Institute at Mattancherry. It was contended that the NCTE Norms were applicable. According to the appellant, as per the NCTE Norms, he is the qualified person as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. Therefore, he had submitted representation to the Government. His representation was allowed by Ext.P10. It was challenging Ext.P10 that the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition itself without issuing notice or hearing him. Therefore, it is contended that substantial prejudice has been caused. It is also pointed out that, the learned Single Judge has directed the matter to be considered by the Manager in accordance with the relevant terms of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) . According to the learned counsel, the KER has no application to the issue and the parties are governed by the NCTE Norms. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge has mistook the dispute as a claim for appointment as Headmaster, which is also wrong.

(3.) Adv. Babu Cherukara appears for the first respondent and Adv. Thomas George appears for the sixth respondent. Adv. S. Russel appears for the seventh respondent. Government Pleader appears for respondents 2 to 5.