C M STELLA Vs. P L RASMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and the first respondent claimed the third vacancy of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Jr) {for brevity HSST hereafter} which arose in the 4th respondent school wherein both of them were working as High School Assistants (HSA).

(2.) The appellant was working as a HSA(Mathematics) having qualification of B.Sc, B.Ed and M.Sc in that subject. The Post Graduate qualification in Mathematics was obtained only on 16.9.2011. The first respondent had a graduate and B.Ed qualification in Mathematics and Post Graduate qualification in Malayalam. She was working as HSA (Malayalam) in the aided school. Admittedly, the appellant was senior to the first respondent, having been appointed as a HSA(Mathematics) on 5.8.1996 and the first respondent appointed as a HSA(Malayalam) on 22.6.1998 from which date there is approved service, which alone can be reckoned for seniority.

(3.) The courses in the Higher Secondary section were sanctioned by the Government on 20.7.2010 which sanction order also provided for appointment of HSST's temporarily as Guest Lecturers. Later, by Ext P1 dated 24.10.2011 produced in the Writ Petition 1510 posts of HSST Juniors, 110 posts of HSST and 146 posts of Principals were created in the Higher Secondary Schools in Thrissur and northern districts. The 4th respondent's school was in Thrissur District and pursuant to Ext P1 obtained sanction of 10 posts of HSST Junior and 1 post of HSST. As per Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) 25% reservation had to be given to the existing qualified teachers in the High School, Upper Primary or Lower Primary Section. A ratio of 1:3 was provided by which out of four the first post was to be conceded to by-transfer appointment from qualified hands in High School, Upper Primary or Lower Primary Section. The appellant was appointed by the Manager, which was unsuccessfully challenged by the first respondent before the educational authorities. Before this Court the first respondent was successful, as the learned Single Judge found the claim of the first respondent to be worthy of consideration going by Note (2) of Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A K.E.R. The appellant impugn the aforesaid judgment.