MARY FREEDA Vs. THRESIAMMA CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant as well as the first respondent along with one Fernando Loretta were appointed by the third respondent on 26.08.1985 based on their merit and ability. The order of appointment says that the appellant stands first, Fernando Loretta second and the first respondent third. This seniority was maintained till June 1997. It appears that in June 1997, unilaterally this seniority was changed by the erstwhile Principal at the verge of his retirement. It was not preceded by any resolution of the Management viz., the College Committee of the fourth respondent, which is the minority institution. The Appellate Authority, by the impugned order dated 25.07.2001, rejected the case of the first respondent stating the aforesaid facts. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents filed a writ petition in W.P.No.20158 of 2001 inter alia contending that the aforesaid order will have to be set aside in view of the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.806 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 13.07.1978.

(2.) The learned single Judge was pleased to set aside the impugned order on 15.12009 on the sole ground that the first respondent having been senior in age is entitled to be placed above the appellant and Fernando Loretta. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the aforesaid Government Order has got no application. Even the appointment order was issued by taking into consideration the merit and ability. The said order has to be taken as the one for fixing the seniority. There is no basis for reversing it in the month of July 1997, which was not authorised by College Committee as taken note of by the Appellate Authority in the order dated 25.07.2001.