(2012) 236 KLR 904 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/28TH MAGHA 1933 WP(C).No. 33091 of 2009 (F) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MARY. P.M, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.SRI.NAISAL GEORGE, H.S.A (SOCIAL STUDIES), ST.ALBERT'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT BOMBAY NIVAS, MARIAKUTTY JOHN ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE CORPORATE EDUCATION AGENCY, ARCHDIOCESE OF VERAPOLY, ST.ALBERT'S H.S.S.CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 5. A.D. ANTONY, H.S.A. (SOCIAL STUDIES), HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL OF JESUS, KOTHAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. JULIE. K.J, CHAMPADY HOUSE, PUSHKARA ROAD, VADUTHALA. P.O, KOCHI-23. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LOWSY A. R4 BY SRI.K. JAYAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADV. SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL. R5 BY SMT.V.P. SEEMANDHINI, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SMT.P.A.RINUSA R6 BY SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADV. SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-02-2012, ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO.35733 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 17/02/2012 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 33091 of 2009 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos. 33091/2009, 35733/2009 and 5736/2010 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of February, 2012 Head Note:- Kerala Education Rule - Chapter XIV-A - Rule 43 - The question whether the petitioner or the sixth respondent was liable to be appointed is essentially a question of fact on which there is no finding by the Government. The Deputy Director in the order found in favour of Smt.P.M. Mary. That order has now been set aside by the Government without any finding on the question whether the petitioner Smt. P.M. Mary or the sixth respondent Smt.Juli K.J. is the rightful claimant. Therefore, the said issue will have to be reconsidered by the Government. J U D G M E N T All these writ petitions concern a common issue, with regard to the approval of appointment claimed by the petitioners in all the writ petitions. 2. W.P.(C) No.33091/2009 is filed by Smt. P.M. Mary challenging Ext.P25 order passed by the Government to the extent to which her claim for approval of appointment has not been found in favour by the Government. The fifth respondent who is the beneficiary of the order, has also filed W.P.(C) No.5736/2010 seeking for various other reliefs including one to establish his claim as a Rule 43 claimant. The sixth respondent in W.P.(C) No.33091/2009 is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35733/2009, who is also claiming appointment in the vacancy to which the petitioner therein was appointed, based on her higher ranking in the list prepared by the Management. 3. Various exhibits are referred to herein as produced in W.P.(C) No.33091/2009, a disposal of which will have a bearing on the other writ petitions. Heard Shri K.R.B. Kaimal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33091/2009, Shri Abraham Vakkanal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35733/2009, Smt.V.P. Seemanthini, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5736/2010, learned Senior Counsel Shri K. Jayakumar and learned counsel Shri Baby Issac Illickal for the Manager and Smt. Lowsy A., learned Government Pleader for the official respondents. The bare facts for the disposal of the writ petitions are the following: 4. Shri A.D. Antony, who is the fifth respondent in W.P.(C) No.33091/2009 is a claimant under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. He was promoted from the post of U.P.S.A. by the Manager in a vacancy which arose in one of the schools under the Management, viz. H.S.S. of Jesus, Kothad as H.S.A. (SS) with effect from 10.7.2006. The appointment was made in the transfer vacancy of Shri. N.J. Francis, H.S.A. (SS) who was transferred to St. Albert's H.S.S., Ernakulam with effect from 10.7.2006. 5. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33091/2009, Smt. P.M. Mary was appointed by another order, Ext.P3 dated 18.6.2007 in St. Albert's H.S.S., Ernakulam in another transfer vacancy. In fact, the petitioner, Smt.P.M. Mary and the sixth respondent, Smt.K.J. Juli have been appointed earlier during different spells under the same management in short term leave vacancies, which have been approved also, but they are not claimants under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. 6. Various details produced by the petitioner in the above writ petition will show that the parties had approached this Court by filing different writ petitions which had culminated in Ext.P6 judgment in W.P. (C) No.23435/2007 filed by Smt.,P.M. Mary, Ext.P9 judgment in W.P.(C) No.31820/2007 filed by the same petitioner, W.P.(C) No.1569/2008 filed by the same petitioner which was disposed of along with W.P.(C) NO.2929/2008 filed by the fifth respondent, Shri A.D. Antony, as per Ext.P10 judgment, Ext.P19 judgment in W.P.(C) No.24590/2008 filed by Smt. P.M. Mary and Exts.P21 and P23 judgments in W.P.(C) Nos.3016/2009 and 21109/2009 filed by the Management. I need not go into the details of these judgments, since the respective rights of the parties have not been finally decided in those cases, as the directions were mainly to the statutory authorities to consider and pass orders on the representations/appeals, etc. 7. The important contentions raised by the petitioner, are the following: Even though Ext.P3 appointment order was forwarded by the Manager for approval along with declaration that there is no other claimant to the said post, the Manager thereafter filed a request seeking return of the appointment order for cancellation of the same, which compelled her to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.23435/2007 and this Court directed the District Educational Officer to take a decision in the matter. The District Educational Officer passed Ext.P7 order upholding the stand of the Manager which was challenged in W.P.(C) No.31820/2007. In the said writ petition, the District Educational Officer had filed a counter affidavit agreeing to withdraw the order and accordingly the said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment. Later, changing from the said stand, the District Educational Officer passed Ext.P11 order. This was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Deputy Director of Education. It was during this time that the approval sought of appointment of the fifth respondent Shri A.D. Antony also resulted in rejection, as per Ext.P13 order dated 28.10.2006. The District Educational Officer took the view that since the Manager had not absorbed a protected teacher in the school, the appointment of the fifth respondent, though he is a rule 43 claimant, cannot be approved. The appeal filed against Ext.P13 order by the Manager was also rejected as per Ext.P14 order. The Manager later, recognising the claim of the fifth respondent, tried to accommodate him in St. Albert's H.S.S. Ernakulam in the vacancy to which the petitioner was appointed and Ext.P15 order was issued cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner challenged Exts.P13 and P14 orders before this Court in W.P.(C) No.24590/2008 and the 6th respondent herein, viz. St.Juli K.J. got herself impleaded therein, raising a claim that instead of the petitioner she was the actual person to be appointed in the light of her ranking above the petitioner in the rank list prepared by the Manager. Ext.P20 is the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam with regard to the claim under Rule 43 of the fifth respondent Shri A.D. Antony. That was in an appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P13 order. 8. In Ext.P20, the Deputy Director of Education was of the view that the appointment of the fifth respondent as H.S.A.(SS) from 10.7.2006 in H.S.S. of Jesus, Kothad is liable to be approved as he is a claimant under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. There was a further direction to submit the appointment orders in respect of Shri A.D. Antony and Smt.P.M. Mary for approval and the claim of the sixth respondent was rejected. This was challenged by the Manager before this Court which resulted in Ext.P21 judgment, wherein the direction was to approach the Government by filing a revision petition. In fact, for non implementation of the direction in Ext.P20 to produce the appointment order in favour of the petitioner, the Manager was disqualified by the Deputy Director by Ext.P22 order which was challenged by the Manager before this Court and Ext.P23 is the judgment whereby this Court directed the Manager to approach the Government itself by filing a revision petition. This is the background under which Ext.P25 order has been passed by the Government. 9. The Government in Ext.P25, upheld Exts.P13 and P14 orders passed by the District Educational Officer and the Deputy Director of Education and set aside the order Ext.P20. In a nutshell, the finding of the Government is that the fifth respondent Shri A.D. Antony cannot enforce his claim under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. in the vacancy in H.S.S. of Jesus, Kothad occurred on 10.7.2006 since as per Government Order No.178/2002/G.Edn. dated 28.6.2002 and the modified guidelines issued in G.O.(P) No.46/06/G.Edn. dated 1.2.2006, the Manager is bound to appoint a protected teacher. Accordingly, it was held that the next vacancy of H.S.A. (SS) arose in St.Albert's H.S.S. on 17.6.2007 can be filled up by appointing the fifth respondent in recognition of his claim under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. There is no vacancy thus to accommodate the petitioner Smt.P.M. Mary or Smt.Juli K.J. 10. This is the factual scenario as far as the various orders are concerned. With regard to the right of the petitioner or the sixth respondent, the Government did not issue any specific direction in Ext.P25 and only recorded the submission of the Manager that the renewed select list for future appointments of H.S.A. (SS) dated 23.11.2005 will be used for future appointments. This Court, while admitting the writ petition, stayed the operation of Ext.P25 order. 11. In W.P.(C) No.35733/2009, as already noticed, Smt.K.J. Juli is seeking for establishment of her rights and is challenging Ext.P24 Government Order (Ext.P25 produced in W.P.(C) No.33091/2009) to the extent to which her claims have not been adjudicated by the Government and in W.P.(C) No.5736/2010 Shri A.D. Antony seeks to establish his claim under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. He has got a further grievance that in spite of Ext.P1 Government Order issued in his favour directing approval in the vacancy in St. Albert's H.S.S. from 18.7.2007, the District Educational Officer again rejected the proposal for approval by Ext.P2 order. This is also under challenge, therein. 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33091/2009 submitted that the initial appointment of the fifth respondent Shri A.D. Antony in H.S.S. of Jesus, Kothad by recognising his right under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. was perfectly in order. Being a claimant under Rule 43, his rights cannot be denied by invoking any stipulations in the executive orders. The statutory right available under Rule 43 cannot be defeated by relying upon such orders. It is therefore contended that as far as the fifth respondent is concerned, the rejection of approval by promoting and appointing him from 10.7.2006 in H.S.S. of Jesus, Kothad, as per Ext.P13 as confirmed in Ext.P14 cannot be justified. It is therefore submitted that the Government Order Ext.P25 also cannot be justified. It is further pointed out that the petitioner was validly appointed as per Ext.P3 by the Manager. Once an appointment is made by the Manager, there is no provision to withdraw it. The select list cannot be put against the petitioner now as the same was operated upon and the petitioner was given an appointment as per Ext.P3. It is pointed out that once the claim of Shri A.D. Antony is recognised, consequently the petitioner will have to be directed to be approved in the vacancy in St. Albert's H.S.S. based on Ext.P3 order. It is further pointed out that the list itself was prepared long back and cannot have any legal sanctity at this distance of time so as to deny the rights of the petitioner. Therefore, it is contended that the sixth respondent has no right to object to the claim of the petitioner in the vacancy which arose on 18.6.2007. 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the sixth respondent, Shri Abraham Vakkanal submitted that the sixth respondent Smt. Julie was actually rank No.29 in the list published by the Management and the petitioner Smt. P.M. Mary was rank No.37. The petitioner's appointment was made by the Management by a mistake and when they found out the mistake and based on the complaint of the sixth respondent the Manager sought to withdraw the appointment order and rightly Ext.P15 proceedings was issued also. It is thus pointed out that the merit will have to be counted and even in the renewed list the sixth respondent is the first named person whereas the petitioner is the third one and the list contains only 4 persons. Even going by the same, the petitioner will not have any grievance since the Management is prepared to make appointment in terms of the ranking in the said list. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Abraham Vakkanal also points out that the respective claims of the petitioner and the sixth respondent have not been adjudicated by the Government in Ext.P25 order produced in W.P.(C) No.33091/2009. Therefore, if this Court finds that the fifth respondent is liable to be approved in H.S.S. of Jesus, Kothad with effect from 10.6.2007, the respective claims of the petitioner and the sixth respondent in the vacancy in St. Albert's H.S.S. will have to be considered by the Government. In support of the plea that the Manager is entitled to get returned an appointment order, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Vijayamma v. State (1982 KHC 366). Regarding the sanctity of the list also, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in O.P.No.12551/1996. 14. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) NO.5736/2010, Smt. V.P. Seemanthini submitted that being a Rule 43 claimant, the petitioner was entitled for approval of appointment from 10.6.2006. The approval was wrongly denied to him and even in respect of the present order, the District Educational Officer has chosen to reject the approval totally in an illegal manner and a Government Order cannot be set at naught by the District Educational Officer at the instance of the Manager, as is done now. 15. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33091/2009, Shri K.R.B. Kaimal relied upon the dictum laid down by this Court in Manager, P.K. High School and others v. State of Kerala andothers (ILR 2011 (4) Ker. 559) in support of the plea that a Rule 43 claimant will have to give preference over the protected teachers from other schools. 16. In fact, in the said judgment I had occasion to consider in detail various circulars and guidelines issued by the department. Learned Senior Counsel also relied upon Exts.P17 and P18 to show that there is a clear provision in Ext.P17 in paragraph 5(i) that "all vacancies arising in the newly opened or upgraded schools coming under Rule 6(viii) Chapter V, Kerala Education Rules may be filled up by protected teachers, if there are no rule 43 and 51A claimants." It is pointed out that in Ext.P18 there is no clause preventing the appointment of Rule 43 claimants. 17. In fact, in the judgment in P.K. High School's case (ILR 2011 (4) Ker.559) I have considered all the relevant circulars and various judgments of this Court while dealing with the very same issue. It was finally held thus in para 17: "I respectfully agree with the view that the protected teachers under the very same Educational Agency will have preference by virtue of the second proviso. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any difficulty to recognise the rights of promotees under Rule 43 which is only subject to Rule 51A as far as the present context is concerned. No protected teachers under the very same Educational Agency were available for absorption. Therefore, the right of promotees under Rule 43 will get precedence over the protected teachers from schools under other Educational Agencies who get a right under various executive orders alone. Evidently, the provisions of statutory rules will override the various clauses of the executive orders, in case of any conflict." Herein also, there is no plea that there is a protected teacher available under the very same Management for absorption in the vacancy to which Shri A.D. Antony was appointed. A claimant under Rule 43 will get preference over the protected teachers from other educational agencies. Such protected teachers have right only under the executive orders issued from time to time. 18. Learned Government Pleader, by relying upon the averments in the counter affidavit, submitted that the orders relied upon in Ext.P25, viz. Government Order dated 28.6.2002 and the modified guidelines issued as per Government Order dated 1.2.2006 have nullified Ext.P17 Government Order and therefore a protected teacher was liable to be appointed. 19. In fact, the said plea cannot also be accepted in the light of the dictum laid down in P.K. High School's case (supra). The legal principle is clear, in that the statutory right cannot be defeated by an executive order to the contrary. In case there is a conflict, the statutory rule will prevail. Therefore, the Government Orders dated 28.6.2002 (G.O.(P) No.178/2002/G.Edn.) and 1.2.2006 (G.O.(P) No.46/06/G.Edn.) cannot defeat the claim of the rule 43 claimant. In fact, I have referred to various Government Orders including those relied upon by the Government herein in the said judgment and therefore the argument to the contrary cannot be accepted. Thus, the rejection of approval of Shri A.D. Antony as per Exts.P13 and P14 produced in W.P.(C) No.33091/2009 which was upheld by the Government in Ext.P25, cannot be accepted. He is therefore entitled to be granted approval in H.S.S. of Jesus, Kothad itself in the vacancy which arose on 10.7.2006. 20. Therefore, Exts.P13, P14 and P25 in W.P.(C) No.33091/2009 are quashed to the extent of denying approval of the fifth respondent who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5736/2010 in the transfer vacancy of H.S.A. (SS) in H.S.S. of Jesus, Kothad, with effect from 10.7.2006. 21. The next issue is how the vacancy which arose in St. Albert's H.S.S. on 18.6.2007 to which the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33091/2009, Smt. P.M. Mary was initially appointed, will have to be filled up. The question therefore turns on the plea whether the ranking in the list has to be followed or the appointment order issued by the Manager initially as per Ext.P3, will have to be accepted, as valid. The plea of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Shri K.R.B. Kaimal, as already noticed, is that there is no power for the Manager to withdraw the appointment order. It is also submitted that the Manager never raised a contention before this Court when Ext.P6 judgment was rendered that the sixth respondent is the rightful claimant and it is for that purpose the appointment order is sought to be withdrawn. My attention was invited to paragraph 4 of the judgment. Therein, this Court reiterated the statement in the counter affidavit filed by the Manager to the effect that "the order of appointment was issued to the petitioner by mistake, overlooking a rule 43 claimant and also other eligible candidates." In fact, learned Senior Counsel Shri Abraham Vakkanal appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35733/2009 and learned Senior Counsel Shri K. Jayakumar appearing for the Manager submitted that the Manager has clearly stated herein about the claim of the other eligible candidates. 22. The further contention raised by Shri K.R.B. Kaimal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33091/2009 is that Ext.R4(a) list is dated 21.11.1998 wherein it is recorded that the list will be valid upto March 2002. Therefore, it has lost validity thereafter and the appointment made by the Manager by Ext.P3 therefore will have to be accepted. It is also submitted that in various leave vacancies, the petitioner was appointed. Shri Abraham Vakkanal, learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the sixth respondent was also appointed in various leave vacancies which were also approved. It is contended that the Management conducted a selection and interview based on which the list was prepared. The sanctity of such list has been recognised by this Court in the judgment in O.P.No.12551/1996 which is a fair procedure evolved by the Manager and the modified list will also show that the same is protecting the rights of everybody. 23. Shri K. Jayakumar, learned Senior Counsel for the Manager invited my attention to the counter affidavit filed by the Manager and submitted that the Management had to maintain the list to ensure fairness in appointment. The list prepared in 1998 was renewed during 2005 and the list will be followed in making the appointments. The averments in the counter affidavit have been relied upon in that context. In paragraph 5 of the additional counter affidavit, it is stated that the candidates from serial Nos.1 to 10 in Ext.R4(a) were offered appointment and only the candidate at serial No.9 had become overaged and hence she could not be appointed. Candidates from rank No.11 onwards could not be appointed. It is also stated that the Arch Bishop of Verapoly is the General Manager of the educational agency who decided that Ext.R4(a) select list should be kept alive till another list is prepared and it involves a laborious process of conduct of examination and interview. It is mentioned in para 6 that in tune with the decision of the Arch Bishop, candidates at rank Nos.11 to 38 were asked to submit renewal forms before 11.11.2005 if they were willing to be considered for future vacancies and the candidates at rank Nos.11, 16,20, 28,29, 32, 34, 37 and 38 reported before 11.11.2005, being the last date fixed for submission of renewal forms. Out of these, candidates at rank Nos.29, 32, 37 and 38 expressed their willingness to work. With regard to daily wages appointment, it is explained in para 8 that in the vacancy which arose in 2006, in St. Albert's H.S.S., Ernakulam, going by the merit, respondent No.6 ought to have been appointed, but she was, at that point of time, working in Easo Bhavan ( a parallel college run by the same educational agency) and therefore she was not called and offered appointment in the daily wages vacancy. It is pointed out that based on the said appointment no claim survives. In paragraph 9 of the additional counter affidavit, the details of the appointment of the petitioner and the reason for withdrawal of the same have been explained. According to the Management, the petitioner was wrongly issued the appointment order and the person in the office of the educational agency who is a distant relative of the petitioner, manipulated the things. The plea raised by the Management is that Ext.R4(c) list is in force. 24. In the counter affidavit filed by the Government in W.P.(C) No.33091/2009, with regard to Ext.R4(c) list and the observation in Ext.P25 order, it is explained in para 8 as follows: "The petitioner as well as the 5th respondent are not leave substitutes as envisaged in KER. The right to appoint any one included in the so called 'select list' or even a new candidate is the right of the 4th respondent. In Ext.P25, Government have not asserted implementation of the 'renewed select list' of the 4th respondent. This statement was only to register the willingness of the 4th respondent in the matter of appointment. Government have not attributed legal sanctity to it as alleged by the petitioner." Therefore, the said paragraph will show that the Government has not issued any specific direction with regard to the right for appointment among the two, since the Government was of the view that the fifth respondent, Shri A.D. Antony had to be accommodated in the vacancy which arose in St. Albert's H.S.S. on 18.6.2007. 25. The question whether the petitioner or the sixth respondent was liable to be appointed, has not been finally decided by the Government. Both parties are raising competing claims. Shri K.R.B. Kaimal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33091/2009 also submitted that the judgment relied upon by Shri Abraham Vakkanal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35733/2009 has been reversed in W.A. No.2365/1998 by a Division Bench of this Court. 26. The question raised is essentially a question of fact on which there is no finding by the Government in Ext.P25. The Deputy Director in the order Ext.P20 produced in W.P.(C) No.33091/2009 found in favour of Smt.P.M. Mary, the petitioner in the said writ petition. That order has now been set aside by the Government in toto in Ext.P25, without any finding on the question whether the petitioner Smt. P.M. Mary or the sixth respondent Smt.Juli K.J. is the rightful claimant. Therefore, the said issue will have to be reconsidered by the Government. 27. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions are allowed. Exts.P13, P14 and P25 produced in W.P.(C) No.33091/2009 (Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.5736/2010) are quashed. Ext.P2 produced in W.P.(C) No.5736/2010 is also quashed. It is declared that Shri A.D. Antony, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5736/2010 is the rightful claimant for appointment the vacancy which arose in H.S.S. of Jesus, Kothad on 10.7.2006. 28. There will be a direction to the Manager to produce the appointment order of the fifth respondent Shri A.D. Antony which was returned by the District Educational Officer, for approving the appointment and there will be a direction to the District Educational Officer to approve the appointment of Shri A.D. Antony with effect from 10.7.2006 in the vacancy in H.S.S. of Jesus, Kothad and the order will be passed within two months of the production of a copy of this judgment. The Government will re-hear the revision petition to consider only one aspect, viz. regarding the claim of the petitioner Smt.P.M. Mary and that of Smt. K.J. Juli for appointment in the vacancy which arose on 18.6.2007 in St. Albert's H.S.S., Ernakulam. An appropriate decision will be taken after hearing the parties, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33091/2009 will be allowed to continue in terms of the interim order passed by this Court and the said continuance will be subject to the final order to be passed by the Government, as directed above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ |
