IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5332 of 2006(I)
1. P.M. ARAVINDAKSHAN, H.S.A. (SANSKRIT)
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION)
4. THE MANAGER, A.K.M.H.S.,
5. AISHKUMARI, H.S.A. (MATHS)
For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.GANGESH
For Respondent :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :04/01/2010
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 5332 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
1. The petitioner is working as H.S.A. (Sanskrit) at
the 4th respondent’s school. In this writ petition he is
challenging the appointment of 5th respondent as
Headmistress of the School in a vacancy which arose on
31.03.2004, overlooking the petitioner’s seniority and
consequential orders passed by the statutory authorities.
According to the petitioner, although the 5th respondent was
initially appointed on 07.06.1978, she was retrenched from
service on division fall on 01.12.1988 and she was deployed
to a Government School as a protected teacher. She was
re-appointed in the parent school only on 15.12.1992. The
petitioner therefore submits that the continuous service of
the 5th respondent can be computed only from 15.12.1992 in
which case for the purpose of promotion as Headmaster the
petitioner would be senior to the 5th respondent. According
W.P.(C)No. 5332 of 2006
-2-
to the petitioner this position has been upheld by a Full
Bench of this court in W.P.(C) No.20543/2008. Therefore
the petitioner seeks the following relief:
i. a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing Exts.P1 to P3 orders passed by the
respondents 2, 3 & 1 respectively.
ii. a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the 4th respondent to draw up a
combined seniority list of teachers in the school placing the
petitioner above the 5th respondent after deducting her period
of service rendered prior to reappointment after protection and
consequentially to promote the petitioner as Headmaster of the
school with effect from 31.03.2004.
iii. a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to disburse
all monetary benefits to the petitioner upon his grant of
promotion as prayed for in prayer No.2.
iv. any other appropriate writ, order or direction as
this Hon’ble Court may be deem fit and necessary on the facts
and in the circumstances of the case, and allow this petition
with all costs.
2. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent
submits that the petitioner’s appointment as Headmaster
was approved on the basis of an earlier Full Bench decision
of this court and subsequently she retired also. He further
submits that so far as the seniority has not been challenged
the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
W.P.(C)No. 5332 of 2006
-3-
The additional 6th respondent submits that the question of
seniority is still in dispute before the Director of Public
Instruction and therefore the petitioner cannot be given any
relief in this writ petition until the seniority portion is
settled.
3. I have considered the rival contention in detail. In
W.P.(C) No.20543/2008 this court has rendered the
following judgment.
” In view of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.12707 of 2005,
this writ petition is liable to dismissed. The petitioner was
deputed to SSA Project from 27.06.2003 to 09.01.2007 as a
protected teacher. Therefore, she will lose seniority in her
parent school and hence, she cannot claim the post of
Headmaster which arose on 01.04.2007. Accordingly, this writ
petition is dismissed.”
4. The facts of this case are exactly identical to the
facts of the said case. That being so, following that
decision, I have to held that the appointment of the
5th respondent as Headmaster to the vacancy which arose
on 31.03.2004 is clearly against the Full Bench decision.
Accordingly the appointment of the 5th respondent as
Headmaster in the vacancy which arose on 31.03.2004 is
W.P.(C)No. 5332 of 2006
-4-
hereby quashed. The parties may work out their remedies
before appropriate authorities based on this decision.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN
JUDGE
shg/