ANITHA DEVI K vs THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION & ORS

The prayers in this writ petition are as follows:

i. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P4 order of the Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education denying the claim of the

petitioner to be appointed as Principal.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent Manager to appoint the petitioner as

Principal of the Sri.Subramanyeswara Higher Secondary School.

iii. Issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Principal of the

Sri.Subramanyeswara Higher Secondary School;

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and

4.

The petitioner was initially appointed as H.S.A in the 4th respondent''s school on 23.6.1987 and as H.S.S.T Sanskrit with effect from

24.8.1998. The petitioner challenges the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Principal of the school. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent had

been appointed as H.S.S.T (Junior) in economics on 14.9.1998. He was thereafter appointed as H.S.S.T in 1999. The petitioner contends that

she had been held to be entitled to all the benefits of full time H.S.S.T in Sanskrit with effect from 24.8.1998. It is contended that by virtue of her

appointment as H.S.S.T Sanskrit with effect from 24.8.1998 and the approval of her appointment as such by Ext.P7 order, the petitioner is

entitled to seniority over the 3rd respondent. It is therefore contended that the petitioner is the better claimant for appointment to the post of

Principal which arose in the school on 1.4.2016. The petitioner relies on Ext.P5 judgment and Ext.P7 order of approval issued by the Director of

Higher Secondary Education to contend that her appointment as H.S.S.T Sanskrit from 24.8.1998 stands approved. It is therefore contended that

going by Ext.P11 seniority list, the petitioner is shown as senior to the 3rd respondent and is therefore clearly entitled for appointment as Principal.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent contending that in Ext.R3(a) seniority list, it has been clearly shown that the

petitioner has 17 years service as H.S.S.T Junior and that as per the staff fixation order, the post in existence in the subject is that of H.S.S.T

(Junior). It is contended that the 3rd respondent having been appointed as H.S.S.T (Junior) on 14.9.1998 and having been granted up-gradation

as H.S.S.T in 1999, he was the senior claimant in the post of H.S.S.T for appointment to the post of Principal. It is further contended by learned

counsel for R3 that Ext.P6 Government Order also provides that the appointment of the petitioner as H.S.S.T was specifically made subject to

staff fixation orders to be passed by the concerned authorities. It is stated that Ext.P7 proceedings of the Director of Higher Secondary Education,

approving the appointment of the petitioner as H.S.S.T in Sanskrit with the scale of pay applicable to the post of H.S.S.T with effect from

24.8.1998 was made subject to a specific condition that the said approval will be ""till the post exists"". It is stated that Ext.P7 specifically states that

approval of appointment and payment of arrears will be in accordance with Ext.P6 Government Order. It is therefore contended on the strength of

Ext.R3(b) staff fixation orders that the post in existence in the subject of Sanskrit was only of H.S.S.T (Junior) and that the petitioner could not

claim seniority in the cadre of H.S.S.T in the absence of any sanctioned posts of H.S.S.T in Sanskrit in the school for the relevant period. It is

submitted that since Ext.R3 (a) seniority list specifically shows the petitioner''s years of service as 11 in the cadre of H.S.A and 17 in the cadre of

H.S.S.T (Junior), it is clear that the petitioner had not worked as H.S.S.T in the school and therefore he would not be entitled to appointment as

Principal since the appointment as Principal is to be made from among qualified H.S.S.Ts working in the school.

The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent adopts the contentions of the 3rd respondent.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent wherein also it is contended that the post available in the school in Sanskrit

was that of H.S.S.T (Junior). It is contended that the petitioner was granted the scale of pay of H.S.S.T but for lack of sanctioned post of H.S.S.T

in Sanskrit in the school, she had never worked against the post of H.S.S.T. It is contended that the post available throughout was that of H.S.S.T

(Junior) and hence the petitioner, who was working only against the sanctioned post of H.S.S.T (Junior) would not expire to promotion to the post

of Principal.

The learned counsel for the petitioner however, further contends that the petitioner''s appointment had been approved by Ext.P7 as H.S.S.T in

Sanskrit. She had been granted the pay scale as well. In the above view of the matter, it is contended that in the absence of any modification of

Ext.P7 order of appointment, the petitioner was entitled to be treated as H.S.S.T for all purposes and to be considered for the post of Principal as

well, taking note of her service seniority.

I have considered the contentions advanced. It is not in dispute before me that the feeder category of promotion to the post for appointment of

Principal in a higher Secondary school is the post of H.S.S.T. A Division Bench of this Court has in 2015 (3) KLT 307 Nanminda Higher

Secondary School v. Director of Higher Secondary Education held that the post of H.S.S.T and H.S.S.T (Junior) are different and distinct and the

service put in by a teacher in the post of H.S.S.T alone is to be reckoned for the purpose of seniority for promotion to the post of Principal in a

Higher Secondary School. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been granted the full time benefits and the scale of pay of H.S.S.T Sanskrit

with effect from 24.8.1998. Ext.P7 order of approval specifies that the petitioner is approved as H.S.S.T Sanskrit in the scale of pay of 6675-

10550/- with effect from 24.8.1998 till the posts exists. However, Ext.P11 seniority list as well as Ext.R3(b) orders of staff fixation show that there

is no sanctioned post of H.S.S.T in Sanskrit in the school for the period in question. In Ext.P11 seniority list also, it is clearly noted that the

petitioner has 17 years of service as H.S.S.T (Junior). In the Remarks column of Ext.P11, it is noted that the petitioner was granted benefit of full

time scale of pay as per the G.O order 20.11.2004. However, it is further recorded that as per the staff fixation order, the post in respect of the

subject is H.S.S.T (junior). An objection has been noted by the petitioner to the said seniority list. In the above view of the matter, the 4th

respondent has taken a stand that the 3rd respondent who has 16 years of service in the post of H.S.S.T to her credit is entitled to appointment as

Principal in the vacancy which arose on 1.4.2016. In view of the fact that the feeder category for appointment to the post of Principal is H.S.S.T

and in view of the fact that the petitioner was working against the sanctioned post of H.S.S.T (Junior) in the school, I am of the opinion that the

view taken in Ext.P4 to the effect that the 3rd respondent was the senior most qualified H.S.S.T (Junior) in the school cannot be found fault with.

I am of the opinion that the reasoning in Ext.P4 order cannot be held to be completely unreasonable or perverse. The stand taken by the

Manager that the 3rd respondent who has worked against the sanctioned post of H.S.S.T for 16 years is entitled to get seniority and to be

considered for appointment to the post of Principal appears to be a reasonable view. The challenge against the order, therefore fails. The writ

petition is accordingly dismissed.