IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18236 of 2007(U)
1. AROKIAMARY RANI P.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
... Respondent
2. THE HEADMASTER,
3. S. MEENAMBAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :25/09/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= =W.P.(C) = = = = = = = = = = = =
No. 18236 OF 2007 U
= = =
Dated this the 25th day of September 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner was a P.D. Teacher in the Education Department.
2. In this writ petition, the grievance was against Ext. P5 by
which according to the petitioner, overlooking her seniority, her
juniors have been promoted as Headmaster. Petitioner submits that
Ext. P1 is the seniority list where she has been included at Sl. No. 7,
while the 3rd respondent who was included at Sl. No. 12 has been
promoted by Ext. P5. According to the petitioner both herself and
the 3rd respondent had acquired test qualification on the same date
and therefore there was no reason to have overlooked her seniority.
3. However, the respondents would justify Ext. P5 on the
ground that the test qualification acquired by the petitioner was
informed to them by Ext. P3, only on 7.5.2007 and that before it
was received, Ext. P5 was already issued on 4.5.2007. In any case,
it is the contention of the petitioner that he being senior and having
W.P.(C) No. 18236 OF 2007
-2-
acquired the test qualification along with others and as Ext. P5
made it obligatory on the part of the concerned Headmasters to
verify the acquisition of qualification by the promotees, the delayed
receipt of Ext. P3 can be no justification for ignoring her rightful
seniority.
4. Irrespective of all this, the fact remains that the petitioner
also has been promoted effective from 19.6.2007. Therefore, what
remains to be resolved is the inter-se seniority between the
petitioner and the 3rd respondent. As already noticed, petitioner
lays her claim relying on Ext. P1 seniority list. Now that only inter-
se seniority between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is the
controversy to be resolved, this, in my view, is a matter which the
petitioner should take up with the 1st respondent by an appropriate
representation, in which case, the 1st respondent shall decide the
same with notice to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent and others
who will be affected.
5. It is directed that in case any representation is received
from the petitioner within 4 weeks from today, the 1st respondent
shall resolve the seniority dispute with notice to all concerned within
W.P.(C) No. 18236 OF 2007
-3-
3 months thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st
respondent for compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-