{"id":28318,"date":"1987-02-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-02-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987"},"modified":"2018-12-14T12:21:16","modified_gmt":"2018-12-14T06:51:16","slug":"smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Mary Oommen vs Manager, M.G.M. High School, &#8230; on 25 February, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt. Mary Oommen vs Manager, M.G.M. High School, &#8230; on 25 February, 1987<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1163, \t\t  1987 SCR  (2) 436<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Khalid<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Khalid, V. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSMT. MARY OOMMEN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMANAGER, M.G.M. HIGH SCHOOL, KURUPPAMPADDY,KERALA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT25\/02\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nKHALID, V. (J)\nBENCH:\nKHALID, V. (J)\nOZA, G.L. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR 1163\t\t  1987 SCR  (2) 436\n 1987 SCC  (2) 214\t  JT 1987 (1)\t559\n 1987 SCALE  (1)437\n\n\nACT:\n    Kerala     Education     Rules--Chapter\tXIV(A)--Rule\n51(A)--Teacher--Appointment to a permanent vacancy--Scope of\nNote  appended to section--Whether a teacher who had  worked\nin a temporary vacancy earlier has a preferential right over\na teacher who worked later in the same school.\n    Statutory  Interpretation--Note to a Rule--Although\t not\nhaving binding effect has persuasive force.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Rule  51(A)\t of Chapter XIV(A) of the  Kerala  Education\nRules  provided that qualified teachers who are relieved  as\nper Rules 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies\nshall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in\nschools under the same Education Agency. A Note was appended\nto  this Rule on 4.7.1972 which provided that if  there\t are\nmore  than  one claimant under this Rule the  order  of\t the\npreference shall be according to the date of first  appoint-\nment.  If  the date of first appointment is the\t same,\tthen\npreference shall be decided with reference to age, the older\nbeing  given the first preference. In making  such  appoint-\nment, due regard should be given to requirement of  subjects\nand  to the instructions issued by the Director\t under\tsub-\nRule(4) of Rule 1 as far as High Schools are concerned.\n    The appellant, who was duly qualified, was appointed  as\na teacher in a temporary vacancy in the school of the  first\nrespondent  from 13.1.1970 and her appointment was  approved\nby the District Educational Officer, the second\t respondent.\nOn the vacancy being ceased to exist she went out of job  on\n16.3.1970.  She\t again\tworked in  a  further  vacancy\tfrom\n22.8.70\t to  17.12.1970. She went out of service  when\tthis\nvacancy ceased. Respondent No. 4, another teacher, worked in\nthe  same school in another leave vacancy from\t1.9.1970  to\n26.11.1970.\n    In\tthe academic year 1971-72 a permanent vacancy  arose\nfor  Social  Studies. The appellant being a  Social  Studies\nteacher\t made a representation claiming appointment  against\nthat vacancy. But the first\n437\nrespondent  appointed  the 4th respondent.  On\ta  complaint\nbeing made by the appellant, the second respondent found the\nappointment  of the 4th respondent irregular and  held\tthat\nthe  legitimate\t claimant  for the permanent  post  was\t the\nappellant and, therefore, did not approve the appointment of\nthe  4th respondent. The Regional Deputy Director of  Public\nInstructions,  respondent No. 3, allowed the appeal  of\t the\nmanagement. The appellant filed a petition under Article 226\nchallenging  the validity of the order passed by  the  third\nrespondent, inter alia, contending that she had a  preferen-\ntial  claim and that the appointment of the  4th  respondent\nwas illegal.\n     A\tSingle\tJudge dismissed the petition on\t the  ground\nthat  Rule  51(A)  conferred a right on\t the  appellant\t for\nappointment in the future vacancies in the school and it did\nnot  restrict  the right of the management to make  his\t own\nchoice\tamong  the thrown out teachers. The  Division  Bench\nalso dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant.\n     On\t the question whether a teacher who had worked in  a\nvacancy\t earlier has preferential right over a\tteacher\t who\nworked later in the same school, allowing the appeal,\n     HELD:  l.\tRule 51(A) of Chapter XIV(A) of\t the  Kerala\nEducation  Rules  does not mandate that the one\t who  worked\nearlier\t should\t be preferred to the one who  worked  later.\n[441B]\n       2.1 Although a Note to a Rule does not have any\tbind-\ning effect, it does indeed have a persuasive force. [441E]\n     2.2  It cannot be ignored that the Note has come as  an\nappendage to Rule 51(A) for qualificatory purposes though it\ndoes not form a part of the Rule. [441F]\n     3.\t The  preference in Rule 51(A) should  be  based  on\npriority of title. [442G]\n     4.\t The  High Court while interpreting Rule  51(A)\t was\ninfluenced  more by the words in the abstract  contained  in\nthe  Rule and not fairness behind the Rule. The\t interpreta-\ntion  given  by the High Court to this Rule  can  result  in\nabuse  of  discretionary power with the management.  If\t the\nGovernment  wanted to clothe the Manager with the  power  to\nchoose among rival contendors to a future vacancy, the\tRule\nshould be suitably amended. [443C-D]\n438\n    5. The Rule as it stands clearly confers priority to the\nearlier appointee. The appellant, therefore, is entitled  to\nsucceed. The appellant will be entitled to all the  benefits\nas  though  she was appointed when the vacancy\tin  question\narose. However, this will not enable her to draw salary\t for\nthe  period she had not worked but only other benefits\tsuch\nas seniority, increments etc. [443D-F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1284  of<br \/>\n1973.\n<\/p>\n<p>    From  the  Judgment and Order dated 18.1.  1973  of\t the<br \/>\nKerala High Court in transfer petition No. 45 of 1972.<br \/>\nG. Vishwanath Iyer and N. Sudhakaran for the Appellant.<br \/>\nP.K. Pillai and Miss Lily Thomas for the Respondents.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    KHALID,  J.\t This appeal by special\t leave\tis  directed<br \/>\nagainst\t the  Judgment dated 18-1-1973, passed by  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt of Kerala in Writ Appeal No. 45 of 1972.<br \/>\n    This appeal involves the correct interpretation and\t the<br \/>\nscope  and  effect  of Rule 51(A) of Chapter  XIV-A  of\t the<br \/>\nKerala Education Rules. The Rule reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;51-A. Qualified teachers who are relieved  as<br \/>\n\t      per  Rules 49 or 52 or on account of  termina-<br \/>\n\t      tion  of vacancies shall have  preference\t for<br \/>\n\t      appointment  to  future vacancies\t in  schools<br \/>\n\t      under the same Education Agency, provided they<br \/>\n\t      have not been appointed in permanent vacancies<br \/>\n\t      in   schools  under  any\t other\t Educational<br \/>\n\t      Agency.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This Rule gives a teacher, discharged for want of vacancy or<br \/>\nrelieved as per Rule 49 or 52, a right to reappointment when<br \/>\na  future  vacancy  comes into existence. It  is  usual\t for<br \/>\nmanagers of schools to appoint teachers to leave  vacancies.<br \/>\nSometimes more than one teacher get so appointed when  there<br \/>\nare  more than one vacancies. When such vacancies  cease  to<br \/>\nexist by the permanent incumbent coming back, the  temporary<br \/>\nappointees  go\tout.  When thereafter  a  permanent  vacancy<br \/>\narises, those who had temporarily worked in leave  vacancies<br \/>\nget pre-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">439<\/span><\/p>\n<p>ference\t to  be appointed to that vacancy. The\tquestion  in<br \/>\nthis  appeal  is whether the Manager who has  to  appoint  a<br \/>\nteacher\t to  a permanent vacancy has to go by  the  rule  of<br \/>\n&#8220;last  come&#8211;first go&#8221;, to use the usual industrial  jargon,<br \/>\nin  reverse,  or whether the Manager has a right  to  choose<br \/>\nbetween\t the  temporary\t teachers,  ignoring  the  principle<br \/>\nusually accepted that a person who gets a right to a post by<br \/>\nvirtue\tof  earlier  appointment should not  be\t ignored  in<br \/>\npreference  to\ta person who gets such title  later.  Before<br \/>\ndealing\t with this case it will be useful to take note of  a<br \/>\nNote to Rule 51(A) which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;If  there  are more than one  claimant  under<br \/>\n\t      this  rule  the order of preference  shall  be<br \/>\n\t      according to the date of first appointment. If<br \/>\n\t      the  date\t of first appointment is  the  same,<br \/>\n\t      then  preference shall be decided with  refer-<br \/>\n\t      ence  to age, the older being given the  first<br \/>\n\t      preference.  In making such  appointment,\t due<br \/>\n\t      regard  should  be  given\t to  requirement  of<br \/>\n\t      subjects and to the instructions issued by the<br \/>\n\t      Director\tunder sub-rule (4) of Rule 1 as\t far<br \/>\n\t      as High Schools are concerned.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This  note gives the correct guideline based on justice\t and<br \/>\nfair play.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Now, we will briefly state the facts. The appellant is a<br \/>\nB.A.,  B  .Ed. degree holder. She is fully qualified  to  be<br \/>\nappointed as a teacher in any Government or aided school  in<br \/>\nthe State of Kerala. She was appointed in a temporary vacan-<br \/>\ncy in the school of the first respondent, from 13-1-1970  to<br \/>\n16-3-1970, in the academic year 1969-70. The appointment has<br \/>\nto  be\tapproved by the District  Educational  Officer,\t the<br \/>\nsecond\trespondent  herein, which was duly done.  Since\t the<br \/>\nvacancy in which the petitioner was working ceased to exist.<br \/>\nShe  went  out of the job on 16-3-1970.\t A  further  vacancy<br \/>\narose  on  22-8-1970 and it continued till  17-12-1970.\t She<br \/>\nworked\tin this vacancy also. She went out of  service\twhen<br \/>\nthis vacancy ceased. Respondent No. 4 is another teacher who<br \/>\nworked in the same school in another leave vacancy, from  1-<br \/>\n91970 to 26-11-1970. The appellant thus had a total  service<br \/>\nof  six\t months and one day while the 4th respondent  had  2<br \/>\nmonths and 25 days of service, under the 1st respondent.<br \/>\n    A permanent vacancy arose in the school for the academic<br \/>\nyear  1971-72,\tfor Social Studies when the Head  Master  in<br \/>\nthat school retired. The appellant made a representation  to<br \/>\nthe  Manager for being appointed against that  vacancy.\t The<br \/>\n1st  respondent appointed the 4th respondent. The  appellant<br \/>\nis a Social Studies teacher. She thereupon<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">440<\/span><br \/>\ncomplained  to the second respondent. The second  respondent<br \/>\nfound  the appointment of the 4th respondent  irregular\t and<br \/>\nheld that the legitimate claimant for the permanent post was<br \/>\nthe  appellant. On this finding he did not approve  the\t ap-<br \/>\npointment  of  the 4th respondent. The management  took\t the<br \/>\nmatter\tin  appeal before the Regional\tDeputy\tDirector  of<br \/>\nPublic Instruction, respondent No. 3, who by his order dated<br \/>\n9-11-1971,  allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by this order\t the<br \/>\nappellant moved the High Court of Kerala by filing  Original<br \/>\nPetition  No. 5064 of 1971, challenging the validity of\t the<br \/>\norder  passed by the 3rd respondent, inter alia,  contending<br \/>\nthat  as  per Rule 51(A), of Chapter XIV(A)  of\t the  Kerala<br \/>\nEducation  Rules, she had a preferential claim and that\t the<br \/>\nappointment of the 4th respondent was illegal.<br \/>\n    The learned Single Judge dismissed the original petition<br \/>\nby  his\t Judgment dated 1-2-1972, on the short\tground\tthat<br \/>\nRule  51(A) conferred a right on the appellant for  appoint-<br \/>\nment  in the future vacancies in the school and it  did\t not<br \/>\nrestrict the right of the management to make his own  choice<br \/>\namong  the  thrown out teachers. The appellant\tpursued\t the<br \/>\nmatter by filing Writ Appeal 45 of 1972. The Division  Bench<br \/>\ndismissed the appeal agreeing with the learned Single  Judge<br \/>\nthat  the  management had a discretion to choose  among\t the<br \/>\nthrown out teachers. Hence this appeal by special leave.<br \/>\n    Though  long  years have passed by\tsince  this  dispute<br \/>\narose wherefore we would have normally declined interference<br \/>\nwith the Judgment under appeal, we think it necessary to lay<br \/>\ndown the law correctly to avoid injustice in cases like this<br \/>\nand  to\t prevent abuse of power of those in  whom  right  is<br \/>\nconferred under Rule 51(A). Now, both the appellant and\t the<br \/>\n4th  respondent are working in the same school.\t Though\t the<br \/>\nsubject to be taught by the appellant and the 4th respondent<br \/>\nfigured\t at  one  stage as an  additional  plea\t before\t the<br \/>\nlearned\t Single Judge, it is inconsequential for this  Judg-<br \/>\nment, though the learned Single Judge held in favour of\t the<br \/>\nappellant on the question of the subject.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Let\t us read the rule in question. This rule  speaks  of<br \/>\nqualified teachers. Both the appellant and the 4th  respond-<br \/>\nent  satisfy this requirement. It speaks of  teachers  being<br \/>\nrelieved as per Rule 49 or Rule 52 or on account of termina-<br \/>\ntion of vacancies. Rule 49 speaks of termination of teachers<br \/>\nafter  vacation, when the vacancy in which they work  extend<br \/>\nover summer vacation and Rule 52 speaks of teachers relieved<br \/>\non account of reduction in the number of posts under  orders<br \/>\nof  the department. We are not concerned with  these  rules.<br \/>\nHere, both the teachers were relieved on account of termina-<br \/>\ntion of vacancies. The<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">441<\/span><br \/>\nRule  states, that such teachers shall have  preference\t for<br \/>\nappointment  to future vacancies in schools under  the\tsame<br \/>\nEducational Agency. A future vacancy has arisen. The  school<br \/>\nwhere  appointment is sought is under the  same\t Educational<br \/>\nAgency.\t The proviso is not material in this case.  All\t the<br \/>\nconditions  for application of this Rule are satisfied.\t The<br \/>\nonly  question that has to be answered is whether a  teacher<br \/>\nwho had worked in a vacancy earlier has a preferential right<br \/>\nover  a teacher who worked later in the same school.  It  is<br \/>\ntrue  that the rule does not in terms, mandate that the\t one<br \/>\nwho worked earlier should be preferred to the one who worked<br \/>\nlater. But would it be in accord with justice and fair play,<br \/>\nto  prefer  the one who worked later to the one\t who  worked<br \/>\nearlier?  In the absence of anything in the Rule  giving  to<br \/>\nthe  management\t a right to choose between the two,  on\t the<br \/>\nground of suitability, merit or effeciency. The Judgment  of<br \/>\nthe Division Bench under appeal was delivered on  18-1-1973.<br \/>\nThe  note quoted above was inserted on 4-7-1972.  This\tnote<br \/>\nleaves\tno doubt as to how Rule 51(A) has to  be  construed.<br \/>\nThe Rule states that preference will be given with reference<br \/>\nto the date of appointment. When the date of appointment  is<br \/>\nthe  same,  age should prevail; the eider  being  given\t the<br \/>\nfirst  preference. Of course, it contains a rider  that\t due<br \/>\nregards\t should be given to the requirements of\t subject  as<br \/>\nfar  as High Schools are concerned. The Division  Bench\t did<br \/>\nnot  choose  to accept the clarification  contained  in\t the<br \/>\nnote. The learned Judges held against the appellant, on\t the<br \/>\nwording\t of the Rule that, in terms, it did not provide\t for<br \/>\nany  preference\t between  two or more persons  and  did\t not<br \/>\nconsider it proper to read more into this Rule by  consider-<br \/>\ning  the note to Rule 5 in the same chapter. Although we  do<br \/>\nnot  say  that a note to a Rule has any binding\t effect,  it<br \/>\ndoes  indeed have a persuasive force. It cannot\t be  ignored<br \/>\nthat  this note has come as an appendage to Rule  51(A)\t for<br \/>\nclarificatory purposes though it does not form a part of the<br \/>\nRule.  The learned Judges held that propriety  and  fairness<br \/>\nrequired  a decision in favour of the appellant,  when\tthey<br \/>\nobserved:  &#8220;It would be proper no doubt to give\t an  earlier<br \/>\nappointee preference. But seeing the rule as we ought to see<br \/>\nevery  rule and every section in the Kerala Education  Rules<br \/>\nand the Kerala Education Act as restrictions or\t regulations<br \/>\nin the matter of the free right of the manager to choose and<br \/>\nappoint, it is impossible to read more into the rule.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    With  respect,  we\tfeel that the  learned\tJudges\twere<br \/>\ninfluenced  more by the words in the abstract  contained  in<br \/>\nthe rule and not with the fairness behind the rule.<br \/>\nThe learned Judges of the Division Bench had before them<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">442<\/span><br \/>\nanother\t Division  Bench Judgment where the  identical\trule<br \/>\nfell  for consideration. The relevant portion of that  Judg-<br \/>\nment was extracted by learned Judges. We also find it useful<br \/>\nto extract it here:\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t    &#8220;5. Very recently, in Writ Appeal No. 44<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      of 1970, we had occasion to construe Rule\t 51-<br \/>\n\t      A.  And  we  then observed  that\tdespite\t its<br \/>\n\t      unhappy wording, in particular, the use of the<br \/>\n\t      words,  &#8220;preference for appointment&#8221;  to\tmean<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;right  to appointment,&#8221; we had  little  doubt<br \/>\n\t      that  what  the rule meant was that  a  person<br \/>\n\t      discharged for want of vacancy had a right  to<br \/>\n\t      be appointed in future vacancies, provided, of<br \/>\n\t      course,  he had not by word or deed  given  up<br \/>\n\t      that right or, we might now add,\tdisqualified<br \/>\n\t      himself  meanwhile.  And\twe  added  that\t the<br \/>\n\t      present  tense  of the words,  &#8220;are  relieved&#8221;<br \/>\n\t      appearing in the rule was the present tense of<br \/>\n\t      logic,  not of time, so that, in\teffect,\t the<br \/>\n\t      rule  should be read as if it said  &#8220;qualified<br \/>\n\t      teachers who stand relieved&#8221; shall have  pref-<br \/>\n\t      erence.  In that view, it is, no\tdoubt.\ttrue<br \/>\n\t      that  the petitioner&#8217;s  appointment&#8217;s  between<br \/>\n\t      1957  and 1961 furnished here with a title  to<br \/>\n\t      re-appointment notwithstanding that they\twere<br \/>\n\t      made  before the rule came into force, and  it<br \/>\n\t      is at least arguable that where no priority in<br \/>\n\t      preference is prescribed by the rule, priority<br \/>\n\t      should be determined by priority of title. The<br \/>\n\t      question,\t then, is whether the plea of  aban-<br \/>\n\t      donment to donment taken by the 3rd respondent<br \/>\n\t      is well founded.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The  above  observation was got over by the  Division  Bench<br \/>\nwith  the observation that &#8220;it was obiter and are  certainly<br \/>\nnot intended to be conclusive observations in the matter. If<br \/>\nso,  we would have referred this case to a Full\t Bench.&#8221;  We<br \/>\nwould  have been happy if the appellate Bench  had  referred<br \/>\nthis  question to a full Bench and resolved the\t controversy<br \/>\nsince  the High Court felt that the  appellant&#8217;s  contention<br \/>\ncarried with it the element of fair play and justice and was<br \/>\nat  least,  to put it mildly, in some measure  supported  by<br \/>\nanother Division Bench of the same Court. We agree that\t the<br \/>\npreference  in\tRule  51-A should be based  on\tpriority  of<br \/>\ntitle. In this case, we do not have a plea of abandonment or<br \/>\nother disqualification.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t learned  counsel for the appellant brought  to\t our<br \/>\nnotice\thow this Rule was understood by the Manager  of\t the<br \/>\nsame school when another vacancy arose earlier. At that time<br \/>\nalso  the present appellant applied to the Manager,  seeking<br \/>\nappointment in the vacancy conse-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">443<\/span><\/p>\n<p>quent  on the retirement of a Head Master. The\tManager\t de-<br \/>\nclined\tthe request and sent a reply to the  appellant,\t the<br \/>\nrelevant portion of which, eloquent in favour of the  appel-<br \/>\nlant, reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t   &#8220;Rule  51(A)\t Chapter XIV-A\tK.E.R.\tlays<br \/>\n\t      down that qualified teachers who are  relieved<br \/>\n\t      on  account of termination of vacancies  shall<br \/>\n\t      have  preference\tfor appointments  to  future<br \/>\n\t      vacancies.  When two persons apply for a\tpost<br \/>\n\t      by virtue of the concession laid down in\tRule<br \/>\n\t      51 A, it is the natural justice to select\t the<br \/>\n\t      persons  who has earlier and longer period  of<br \/>\n\t      previous\tservice. Hence considering  all\t the<br \/>\n\t      aspects  of the question, the  management\t has<br \/>\n\t      appointed Smt. P.E. Sosamma in the said vacan-<br \/>\n\t      cy.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    The\t Manager  then understood the  rule  correctly,\t but<br \/>\nlater incorrectly. That is why we said earlier in our  Judg-<br \/>\nment that the interpretation given by the High Court to this<br \/>\nRule  can result in abuse of this discretionary\t power\twith<br \/>\nthe Manager. If the Government wanted to clothe the  Manager<br \/>\nthe  power  to\tchoose among rival contenders  to  a  future<br \/>\nvacancy, the rule should be suitably amended. The rule as it<br \/>\nstands\tclearly confers priority to the\t earlier  appointee.<br \/>\nThe  appellant,\t therefore, is entitled to succeed.  We\t set<br \/>\naside the order of the Division Bench under appeal and allow<br \/>\nthis  appeal.  The  appellant will be entitled\tto  all\t the<br \/>\nbenefits  as  though she was appointed when the\t vacancy  in<br \/>\nquestion  arose.  We would like to make it clear  that\tthis<br \/>\ndirection of ours will not enable her to draw salary for the<br \/>\nperiod\tshe had not worked but only other benefits  such  as<br \/>\nseniority,  increments\tetc. The first respondent  will\t pay<br \/>\ncosts of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<pre>A.P.J.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\nallowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">444<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Smt. Mary Oommen vs Manager, M.G.M. High School, &#8230; on 25 February, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1163, 1987 SCR (2) 436 Author: V Khalid Bench: Khalid, V. (J) PETITIONER: SMT. MARY OOMMEN Vs. RESPONDENT: MANAGER, M.G.M. HIGH SCHOOL, KURUPPAMPADDY,KERALA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT25\/02\/1987 BENCH: KHALID, V. (J) BENCH: KHALID, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28318","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Smt. Mary Oommen vs Manager, M.G.M. High School, ... on 25 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Mary Oommen vs Manager, M.G.M. High School, ... on 25 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1987-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-14T06:51:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Mary Oommen vs Manager, M.G.M. High School, &#8230; on 25 February, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-14T06:51:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987\"},\"wordCount\":2370,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987\",\"name\":\"Smt. Mary Oommen vs Manager, M.G.M. High School, ... on 25 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-14T06:51:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Mary Oommen vs Manager, M.G.M. High School, &#8230; on 25 February, 1987\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt. Mary Oommen vs Manager, M.G.M. High School, ... on 25 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Mary Oommen vs Manager, M.G.M. High School, ... on 25 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-14T06:51:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Mary Oommen vs Manager, M.G.M. High School, &#8230; on 25 February, 1987","datePublished":"1987-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-14T06:51:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987"},"wordCount":2370,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987","name":"Smt. Mary Oommen vs Manager, M.G.M. High School, ... on 25 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-14T06:51:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-mary-oommen-vs-manager-m-g-m-high-school-on-25-february-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Mary Oommen vs Manager, M.G.M. High School, &#8230; on 25 February, 1987"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28318","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28318"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28318\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28318"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28318"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28318"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}