JUDGEMENT
Abdul Gafoor, J. -
(1.)The appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Malayalam) is the bone of contention in this appeal between the appellant in W. A. No. 1403/05 (the 3rd respondent in the writ petition) and the first respondent therein (writ petitioner in the writ petition), who is the appellant in the other appeal.
(2.)The claim of the first respondent/writ petitioner was rejected by the Director of Higher Secondary Education as per Ext. P7. Therefore, she filed the writ petition. As per the impugned judgment, Ext. P7 had been set aside finding that the Manager of the Aided School ought to have preferred the first respondent rather than the appellant. But the learned single Judge did not direct payment of back wages to the first respondent in respect of the period during which she ought to have been appointed. Therefore, she has preferred W. A. No. 1441/05 claiming salary for the period during which she was denied appointment.
(3.)The appellant was appointed by the Manager as High School Assistant (Malayalam) on 6.6.1994. She did possess the required qualification for the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (for short H.S.S.T.) on the date of occurrence of the vacancy i.e. 5.9.2000 and her qualifications were M.A. and B.Ed. At the same time, the manager appointed the first respondent as High School Assistant (Malayalam) with effect from 15.2.2000, but approval to this appointment was pending with the department. She did possess, at the relevant point of time, M.A. and B.Ed. apart from pass in State Eligibility Test (SET). This is an admitted position. The Manager preferred, on the basis of the minutes of the selection committee, the appellant for the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Malayalam). The first respondent contested this and staked her claim before the department contending that the appellant was never qualified as she did not have the SET qualification; whereas the first respondent did have that qualification. It was further contended that going by Ext. P3, SET was an essential qualification and only in the absence of SET qualified hands, other qualified hands from the service or from open market shall be appointed. At that time Ext. P3 was in force regarding the qualification for the post. Going by the said order, the appellant ought not to have been preferred, first respondent contended, but the department did not accept this contention and rejected her claim as is revealed by Ext. P7. The learned single Judge examining the challenge against Ext. P7, found that going by Ext. P3 the Manager could not have preferred the appellant, but only the first respondent. Therefore, her appointment was directed. This is impugned in W. A. No. 1403/05 by the appellant, who has been preferred by the Manager.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.