IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 W.P(C).No. 18236 of 2007(U) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- AROKIAMARY RANI P., P.D. TEACHER (TAMIL), G.U.P.S., MENONPARA, MENONPARA P.O., PALAKKAD DIST.,PIN-678 556. BY ADV. SRI. ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD. 2. THE HEADMASTER, G.U.P.S. MENONPARA, MENONPARA P.O., PALAKKAD DIST. 3. S. MEENAMBAL, HEADMISTRESS, G.L.P.S., PERUVEMBA, PALAKKAD DIST. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. T.T. MOHAMMED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 18236 OF 2007 U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of September 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a P.D. Teacher in the Education Department. 2. In this writ petition, the grievance was against Ext. P5 by which according to the petitioner, overlooking her seniority, her juniors have been promoted as Headmaster. Petitioner submits that Ext. P1 is the seniority list where she has been included at Sl. No. 7, while the 3rd respondent who was included at Sl. No. 12 has been promoted by Ext. P5. According to the petitioner both herself and the 3rd respondent had acquired test qualification on the same date and therefore there was no reason to have overlooked her seniority. 3. However, the respondents would justify Ext. P5 on the ground that the test qualification acquired by the petitioner was informed to them by Ext. P3, only on 7.5.2007 and that before it was received, Ext. P5 was already issued on 4.5.2007. In any case, it is the contention of the petitioner that he being senior and having W.P.(C) No. 18236 OF 2007 -2- acquired the test qualification along with others and as Ext. P5 made it obligatory on the part of the concerned Headmasters to verify the acquisition of qualification by the promotees, the delayed receipt of Ext. P3 can be no justification for ignoring her rightful seniority. 4. Irrespective of all this, the fact remains that the petitioner also has been promoted effective from 19.6.2007. Therefore, what remains to be resolved is the inter-se seniority between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. As already noticed, petitioner lays her claim relying on Ext. P1 seniority list. Now that only inter- se seniority between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is the controversy to be resolved, this, in my view, is a matter which the petitioner should take up with the 1st respondent by an appropriate representation, in which case, the 1st respondent shall decide the same with notice to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent and others who will be affected. 5. It is directed that in case any representation is received from the petitioner within 4 weeks from today, the 1st respondent shall resolve the seniority dispute with notice to all concerned within W.P.(C) No. 18236 OF 2007 -3- 3 months thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-