IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5802 of 2009(U)
1. THE CORPORATE EDUCATINAL AGENCY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. K.S.PETER WILLIAMS,KALATHI VEETTIL HOUSE
5. M.F.MARY BETSY, L.P.S.A,ST.ANTONY U.P.
For Petitioner :SRI.MOHAN C.MENON
For Respondent :SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :29/01/2010
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN,J
=========================
W.P.(C).No.5802 of 2009
==========================
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a Corporate Educational Agency owning
several educational institutions. By virtue of previous approved
appointment, the 4th respondent acquired a claim under Rule
51A of Chapter XIVA of the K.E.R. He raised a complaint that he
has not been given preferential appointment in a vacancy which
has arisen in the school. A litigation arose, which resulted in
Ext.P14 of the Government whereby the 4th respondent was
directed to be accommodated in a vacancy in St.Antony’s U.P.S.,
Palluruthy under the management of the petitioner. The
petitioner has filed this writ petition contending that because of
the acute mental disorder of the 4th respondent, it would be not
in the interests of the school and the students to appoint him,
even if he has a claim under Rule 51A. The 4th respondent would
dispute the contention on the ground that a Medical Board has
cleared the petitioner and therefore the contention of the
petitioner cannot be accepted. However, now, it is submitted by
the parties that the 4th respondent has been accommodated in a
W.P.(C).No.5802/2009
2
subsequent vacancy in another school under the petitioner-
management, which appointment has also been approved by the
educational authority. The 4th respondent is satisfied with the
same. The 5th respondent submits that she was appointed in the
vacancy to which the 4th respondent laid claim and because of
the dispute raised by the 4th respondent, her appointment has
not been approved. She submits that now that the 4th
respondent’s appointment in another school has been duly
approved, there cannot be any objection in approving the
appointment of the 5th respondent. But the learned counsel for
the 4th respondent pointed out that such approval can only be
subject to the claim regarding the seniority of the 4th respondent,
since the 4th respondent is entitled to preferential appointment
ahead of the 5th respondent and therefore, the 5th respondent’s
appointment can be approved only subject to the seniority of the
4th respondent.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of
recording the fact that the 4th respondent has been
accommodated in another vacancy in another school which has
been approved and directing the 3rd respondent to consider the
W.P.(C).No.5802/2009
3
question of approval of the the 5th respondent’s appointment
taking into account the claim of the 4th respondent for seniority
over the 5th respondent in the matter of appointment. The same
shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
dvs
