MAHILA SAMITI TRUST Vs. KIRAN SHAM SHIVNANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the learned Counsel for parties and at their request taken up for final hearing.

(2.) BY this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the orders passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai dated 4.12.2013 in Appeal No. 12 of 2013, by which the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 1, whereby her supersession to the post of Head of the School by appointing respondent No. 3 with effect from 10.6.2013, was set aside. In short the facts are: -

(3.) PETITIONER No. 1 is a Trust conducting an educational institution namely Mahila Samiti English High SchoolandJunior College. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher initially in the primary section with effect from 22.6.1977. Thereafter, from 15.6.1992, respondent No. 1 was appointed in the secondary section. One Smt. Jaya Venu Gopal who was the Headmistress at the relevant time, was retiring on 31.5.2013 and after her retirement a vacancy would arise of the post of a Headmistress. As per the seniority list of the Assistant Teachers one Smt. T.A.Annapurni was senior to respondent No. 1 and was required to be considered for appointment as Headmistress. However, Smt. T.A. Annapurni conveyed that she was not willing for appointment as the Headmistress. Therefore, the petitioner -Management invited willingness from respondent No. 1 who was immediately next in seniority as also from some other teachers for appointment to the post of Headmistress. It was the case of respondent No. 1 that the petitioner -Management was not acting in accordance with the Rules in seeking willingness from the other teachers, as the requirement of the Rule was that immediately the next senior teacher i.e. the respondent No. 1's willingness could only be asked. Therefore, willingness of Respondent No. 3 could not have been asked by the petitioner.