ANI THOMAS v. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

**==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:28253`** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 25213 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` ANI THOMAS AGED 56 YEARS HSST (PHYSICS), PADANILAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PADANILA P.O., NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 529 ``` ``` BY ADVS. M.R.ANISON P.A.RINUSA ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001`** - **`2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001`** - **`3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, CHEGANNUR-689 121`** - **`4 CHITHRA.S. PRINCIPAL, PADANILAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PADANILA P.O., NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 529`** - **`5 INDULAKSHMI.R. HSST ( CHEMISTRY), PADANILAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PADANILA P.O., NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 529`** - **`6 THE MANAGER PADANILAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PADANILA P.O., NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 529 BY ADV R.RAJESH(PULLIKADA)`** - **`GP- NIMA JACOB`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` - **`26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:`** WP(C) No. 25213 of 20 21 - 2 - ``` 2025:KER:28253 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 26[th] day of March, 2025 Above writ petition was filed seeking to quash Exts.P1, P4, P5 and P9 and for a consequential direction to the 6[th] respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Principal with effect from 01.04.2013, and for a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to approve the said appointment with effect from the said date. 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as UPST in the 6[th] respondent school with effect from 07.06.1993 and was promoted as HSST (Physics) with effect from 23.07.1998. The 6[th] respondent school was upgraded as a Higher Secondary School as per Government order dated 26.07.2000, and Government created permanent post in the said higher secondary section of the 6[th] respondent school with effect from 14.08.2000 and 17.08.2001. It is contended that the petitioner is a fully qualified senior most teacher working in the high school section and was accommodated as HSST (Physics) in the higher secondary section of the 6[th] respondent with effect from 07.08.2000. Though she started taking class with effect from 07.08.2000 she was permitted to mark attendance only with effect from 11.10.2000. At the time of occurrence of the vacancies the order which governs the appointment of higher secondary school teachers was GO(MS)No.162/1998/G.Edn dated 13.05.1998. WP(C) No. 25213 of 20 21 - 3 - ``` 2025:KER:28253 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** As per the said Government order 25% of vacancies of higher secondary school teachers have to be filled up by appointing qualified high school assistants and primary school teachers working in the very same school and remaining 75% vacancies will have to be filled up by direct recruitment. The said order was challenged before the Apex Court and an interim order was passed directing the school managers to fill up the vacancies by appointing qualified candidates working in the high school and upper primary section. Petitioner is fully qualified for appointment as HSST in the 25% quota reserved for high school assistants, and was entitled for appointment as such with effect from 14.08.2000, i.e. the date on which the post of HSST was created in the 6[th] respondent school. 3. Respondents 4 and 5 are directly recruited higher secondary school teachers in the 6[th] respondent school. Petitioner would submit that they are entitled for appointment in the 25% quota only after accommodating the petitioner, the legal position of which was clarified by this Court in **Prasannakumary v. Director, Higher Secondary Education [2006 (1) KLT 356]** . In violation of the above said provisions the 4[th] and 5[th] respondents were appointed as HSST in the 6[th] respondent school with effect from 04.09.2000, and the same was approved as per Ext.P1. The appointment of the petitioner was approved only with effect from WP(C) No. 25213 of 20 21 - 4 - ``` 2025:KER:28253 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 11.10.2000. The petitioner was all along treated as senior to respondents 4 and 5, and in Ext.P2 seniority list also petitioner was assigned rank No.2, whereas respondent Nos.4 and 5 were ranked as serial Nos. 7 and 5. When the Principal of the 6[th] respondent school retired from service, the said vacancy was filled by appointing the petitioner as Principal-in-charge, being the senior most teacher working in the higher secondary section. The same was approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education as per Ext.P3. Later the 6[th] respondent published the seniority list of teachers as of 01.06.2017 and 01.06.2018, whereby assigning rank to the petitioner below respondents 4 and 5 as per Exts.P4 and P5. 4. Petitioner objected to the same and submitted Ext.P6 representation. Thereafter petitioner approached this Court filing WP(C) No.1438 of 2018 seeking a direction to assign seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of HSST above respondents 4 and 5. The 4[th] respondent also filed another writ petition numbered as WP(C) No.37726 of 2018 seeking a direction for promotion to the post of Principal in the 6[th] respondent school. Both the writ petitions were heard and disposed of together as per Ext.P7 judgment. Pursuant to the direction issued in Ext.P7 the 6[th] respondent promoted the 4[th] respondent as Principal with effect from 01.04.2021. Petitioner WP(C) No. 25213 of 20 21 - 5 - ``` 2025:KER:28253 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** challenged the said order of appointment as per Ext.P8 representation which was rejected by the 1[st] respondent as per Ext.P9. Petitioner relying on Exts.P12 and P11 which are the Government orders in force at the date of occurrence of vacancy submits that the petitioner ought to have been assigned seniority above respondents 4 and 5. It is challenging the order of rejection that the present writ petition has been filed. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 4[th] respondent. It is contended that petitioner is junior to the 4[th] respondent. The outgoing Principal Smt. A.R. Shantamma and Smt. Jayakumari S. are seniors to the petitioner in the cadre of HSST under the 6[th] respondent, and accordingly the petitioner is entitled to be accommodated only in the 9[th] arising vacancy of HSST, and therefore at any rate only junior to the 4[th] respondent. It is further contended that the appointment order which was made almost 20 years ago is now challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. After having accepted Ext.P1 approval of appointment granted to the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 and 5 the petitioner cannot now challenge the same after a lapse of 20 years and the respondent No.4 is entitled to stay back. Taking into account date of appointment shown in Ext.P1 would reveal that respondents 4 and 5 are seniors to the petitioner as the said respondents have WP(C) No. 25213 of 20 21 - 6 - ``` 2025:KER:28253 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** continuous service from 04.09.2000, whereas the petitioner has continuous service only from 11.10.2000. It is in the said circumstances that the claim of the petitioner was rejected. It is further submitted that petitioner proceeded on leave from 03.01.2022 to 30.03.2022 and was due to retire in 2022, and the leave was sanctioned as per Ext.R4(a). In the said circumstances, the 4[th] respondent is discharging the duties of Principal of the school and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. A detailed statement has been filed by the 3[rd] respondent contending that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court the issue was examined, and as per the seniority list it was found that the 4[th] respondent is senior and therefore she is eligible for the post of Principal. 7. The thrust of the argument of the petitioner is that in Ext.P2 seniority list she is assigned seniority over respondents 4 and 5, and on the strength of the same by Ext.P3 her appointment as Principal-in-charge was approved by the authorities. A perusal of Ext.P1 approval of appointment of the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 would reveal that the petitioner has continuous service in the post of HSST only with effect from 11.10.2000, whereas respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are having continuous service from 04.09.2000 onwards. Even in Ext.P3 WP(C) No. 25213 of 20 21 - 7 - ``` 2025:KER:28253 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** approval of appointment of the petitioner as Principal-in-charge it is made clear that the same is purely temporary and provisional and the said temporary arrangement is granted only to ensure that the pay and allowance of the staff could be claimed in time. It is specifically mandated in Ext.P3 that the said approval will not make the petitioner entitled to claim for the post of Principal and it is only a temporary and provisional arrangement. Though in Ext.P2 seniority list as on 13.03.2013 the petitioner was assigned seniority over respondents 4 and 5 even though the date of continuous service is after respondents 4 and 5, the seniority list was revised in 2017, wherein respondents 4 and 5 were granted seniority over the petitioner. Though the petitioner relies on Ext.P10 order and Ext.P11 circular, in the circular issued based on interim order passed by the Apex Court, it is mandated that in case of private aided schools if suitable qualified candidates among who existing teachers already working are available in the School they may be appointed purely on ‘Adhoc basis’ as a stop gap arrangement subject to further orders. It was also ordered that if suitable candidates are not available then the teachers may be appointed from the open market also on adhoc basis. Therefore, a perusal of Ext.P11 would show that it is not a blanket order. Admittedly by Ext.P1 order the approval was granted to the petitioner only with effect from WP(C) No. 25213 of 20 21 - 8 - ``` 2025:KER:28253 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 11.10.2000, whereas respondents 4 and 5 were granted approval with effect from 04.09.2000, a date prior to the petitioner. Ext.P1 order which was passed as early as in 2002 was not challenged by the petitioner in any of the proceedings and the same has become final. The petitioner for claiming seniority only based on the position granted to the petitioner in Ext.P2 seniority list of 2013, wherein the petitioner was assigned rank above respondents 4 and 5. Even in Ext.P2 it is stated that the petitioner has continuous service only with effect from 11.10.2000, whereas respondents 4 and 5 were having continuous service from 04.09.2000 onwards. The said anomaly in Ext.P13 seniority list was modified in Ext.P4 seniority list for the year 2017. In Ext.P9 order also the Government has found that the 4[th] respondent was given approval of appointment with effect from 04.09.2000, whereas the petitioner was granted only with effect from 11.10.2000 and that no objection was raised by the petitioner at any point of time and Ext.P1 order was never challenged. Taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has not challenged Ext.P1 approval of appointment granted to respondents 4 and 5 on a date anterior to the approval of appointment of the petitioner and that Ext.P1 order has become final, I am not inclined WP(C) No. 25213 of 20 21 - 9 - ``` 2025:KER:28253 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** to grant any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE** sbk/- WP(C) No. 25213 of 20 21 - 10 - ``` 2025:KER:28253 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25213/2021`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** - **`Exhibit P1`** ``` TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING ACD.C3/18605/HSE/2001, DATED 02.07.2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ``` - **`Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF SENIORITY LIST AS ON 30.03.2013 OF 6TH RESPONDENT SCHOOL`** - **`Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.TRO/7/4701/13/HSE, DATED 17.05.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SENIORITY LIST AS ON 01.06.2017`** - **`Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SENIORITY LIST AS ON 01.06.2018`** - **`Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 09.02.2021 IN WPC NO.1438/2019`** - **`Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 09.02.2021 IN WPC NO.1438/2019`** - **`Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.04.2021 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF GO (P) NO.4654/2021/G.EDN DATED 16.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF GO (MS) NO.162/98/G.ED DATED 13.05.1998 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`** ``` Exhibit P11 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO.ACD.A1/2179/99/HSE, DATED 23.12.1999 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ```