IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 38429 of 2002(Y) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JOSEPHINE SHERLY PAUL W/O. P.MATHAI, PLATHARAYIL HOUSE, PARUMPUZHA P.O., KOTAYAM-686032 PRESENTLY LOWER GRADE HINDI TEACHER, C.M.S. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, C.M.S.SCHOOLS, C.S.I. DIOCESE MADHYA KERALA, KOTTAYAM 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTAYAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) KOTTAYAM. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA 5. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 6. SMT. ALICE PAUL, LOWER GRADE FULL TIME HINDI TEACHER, C.M.S.HIGH SCHOOL, PALLAM, KOTTAYAM. 7. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. THE PRINCIPAL, C.M.S.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MALLAPPALLY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.T. MOHAMOOD, ADV. SRI. S. SUBASH CHAND, ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON 12/03/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 38429/2002-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B6/11474/K. DIS. DTD. 14/02/2000 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B4-2695/2000-K. DIS. DTD. 02/09/2000 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER G.O. (MS). NO. 275/99/G. EDN. DTD. 09/11/1999. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 11/10/2001 IN O.P. NO. 29063/2000 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DP4/91464/01/K. DIS. DT. 25/01/2002 ISSUED BY THE D.P.I. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DP4/12393/02/D. DIS. DT. 23/10/2002 ISSUED BY THE D.P.I. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 07/11/2002 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.8. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 19/11/2002 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 25/11/2002 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 02/12/2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 31/10/1998 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 05/06/2000 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ET4-152506/2002/K. DIS. DTD. 25/01/2003 ISSUED BY THE D.P.I. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D. 1246/2002 DTD. 16/04/2002 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHERTHALA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER NO. 2597/A/2000 DTD. 26/05/2000 ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 4897/2002 DTD. 08/02/2002 PASSED BY THE MANAGER. EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D. 1246/2002 DTD. 16/04/2002 ISSUED BY A.E.O. EXT.R1.D: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B1/1937/2002/K. DIS. DTD. 07/05/2002 ISSUED BY THE DY. DIRECTOR (EDN.) KOTTAYAM. O.P. NO. 38429/2002-Y: EXT.R1.E: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 5203/2002 DTD. 03/06/2002 OF THE CORPORATE MANAGER. EXT.R1.F: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1.G: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 5259/2002 DTD. 14/06/2002 ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.R1.H: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 6718/2002 DTD. 31/10/2002 ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1.I: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 05/11/2002 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1.J: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 6791/2002 DT. 25/11/2002 ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1.K: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 20/11/2002 ISSUED TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.R1.L: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 23/11/2002 ISSUED TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.R1.M: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE SCHOOL DTD. 18/11/2002. EXT.R6.A: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 14/12/2001 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN R.P. NO. 588/2001. EXT.R6.B: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P. NO. 29063/2000. EXT.R6.C: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 08/02/2002 ISSUED BY THE R.1. IN IMPLEMENTATION OF EXT.P.5. ORDER. EXT.R6.D: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 07/03/2002 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P. NO. 6594/2002. EXT.R6.E: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 07/05/2002 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) KOTTAYAM. EXT.R6.F: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 15/11/2002 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P. NO. 26923/2002. EXT.R6.G: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/01/2003 PASSED BY THE R.5. EXT.R6.H: COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 02/11/1998. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No.38429 of 2002 ================== Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Lower Grade Hindi Teacher, now working in C.M.S. Higher Secondary School, Mallappally, one of the schools owned by a Corporate Educational Agency, of which the 1st respondent is the Manager. She seeks resolution of a long standing dispute among her, the 1st respondent Manager and the 6th respondent, another Lower Grade Hindi Teacher, now working in the C.M.S. High School, Pallom, another school owned by the same Educational Agency, in which the Manager has taken a stand against the petitioner and in favour of the 6th respondent. The grievances of the petitioner have been substantially redressed by interim orders of this Court dated 28.2.2003 and 6.4.2005 in this original petition. As such, presently, the grievances of the petitioner narrow down to two, namely, her claim for transfer to the C.M.S. High School, Pallom, in the place of the 6th respondent and her claim for salary for the period from 12.2.2002 to 4.3.2003, during which period, according to the o.p.38429/02 2 petitioner, she was not allowed to join duty, whereas according to the Manager, she willfully abstained from joining duty. 2. The petitioner's case has a chequered history which started on 5.7.95. From 5.7.95 to 1.11.1998 she was working in various schools under the same educational agency in temporary vacancies, approval of which appointments were delayed but ultimately granted by the educational authorities. But in the meantime the 1st respondent effected other appointments which were approved earlier than that of the petitioner. By order dated 31.10.1998, the petitioner was appointed in a temporary vacancy in Mallappally School with effect from 2.11.1998. While she was working in the temporary vacancy, the Manager appointed other junior teachers in regular vacancies in violation of Ext.P3 Government Order, which stipulated that leave substitutes shall be regularised against the first arising permanent/regular vacancy in the respective schools in the order of seniority. The 6th respondent and one Sri.N.P. Reji, juniors to the petitioner were so appointed while the petitioner was still working against a temporary vacancy. By a petition dated 1.11.1999 the petitioner complained to the D.E.O., Cherthala, that the 6th respondent, a o.p.38429/02 3 fresh hand was appointed against a regular vacancy in the K.M.U.P.School, Kalavancode overlooking the preferential claim of the petitioner. The petitioner filed another complaint before the D.E.O. Kottayam also when the 6th respondent was accommodated against a regular vacancy at the Pallom School. The D.E.O., Kottayam, the 2nd respondent herein, heard all parties and by Ext.P1 order dated 14.2.2000, directed the 1st respondent-Manager, to appoint the senior-most better claimant against the regular vacancy at Pallom and to adjust the 6th respondent in another School. Subsequently, by Ext.P12 order dated 5.6.2000, the petitioner was appointed in a regular promotion vacancy with effect from 5.6.2000. In the meanwhile, the Manager filed appeal against Ext.P1 order and the Deputy Director of Education, Kottayam, by Ext.P2 order dated 2.9.2000, rejected the same directing the Manager to appoint the senior teacher, the petitioner, in the first arising vacancy. In O.P. No.29063/2000 filed by the petitioner, originally this Court directed the Manager to implement Exts.P1 and P2 orders. However, later the same was reviewed and the 5th respondent, Director of Public Instruction, was directed to dispose of the o.p.38429/02 4 revision petitions filed by the Manager and the 6th respondent. Pursuant thereto, the D.P.I. passed Ext.P5 order dated 25.1.2002 directing the Manager to shift the petitioner against the permanent/regular vacancy which arose first and to make suitable arrangements of posting of teachers against sanctioned posts so as to enable the petitioner and the 6th respondent to claim salary without further delay. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed with effect from 2.11.1998 at the Kalavancode School by order dated 8.2.2002. By Ext.P14 order dated 16.4.2002, the A.E.O., Cherthala, refused to approve the same on the ground that the appointment was against the order of the D.P.I. Later the Manager transferred the petitioner to the Mallappally School by order dated 3.6.2002. 3. According to the petitioner, when she reported for duty at Mallappally, she was not allowed to join duty by the Principal, allegedly on the instructions of the Manager. The petitioner alleges that one retired teacher, Smt. Thankamma was engaged to take classes in place of the petitioner. Petitioner complained to the D.P.I. who passed Ext.P6 order dated 23.10.2002, directing the Manager to issue urgent instructions to admit the petitioner o.p.38429/02 5 to duty in the School and to conduct enquiry against the Principal to take action for mal-administration. The Manager was directed to take steps to get the arrear salary of the petitioner sanctioned with effect from 2.11.1998 at the earliest. The petitioner alleges that in spite of Exts.P5 and P6, the Manager did not do anything. Petitioner filed Ext.P7 request dated 7.11.2002 before the Principal to allow her to mark attendance and to draw and disburse her salary from 2.11.1998. She filed Ext.P8 request dated 19.11.2002 before the Manager requesting action against the Principal. However, by Ext.P9 dated 25.11.2002 intimating her that she has not joined duty despite repeated requests, she was unauthorisedly absent and directing her to join duty. She filed Ext.P10 reply explaining that she is not being allowed to join duty. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this original petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, or order or direction calling for the records leading upto Ext.P12 and quash Ext.P9: ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order directing as follows: a) to direct the 8th respondent to allow the petitioner to sign the attendance register from 12.2.2002 onwards and allow her to work in the school for the time being. o.p.38429/02 6 b) to take action against the 8th respondent for engaging unauthorised teachers to take classes in the 8th respondent's school in the place of petitioner. c) to direct the Manager to implement Ext.P5 order by the D.P.I. by posting the petitioner to C.M.S.H.S. Pallam immediately and draw and disburse salary from 2.11.1998 onwards; d) to direct the 5th respondent to enquire into the illtreatment meted out by the petitioner in the hands of the 1st and 8th respondents and initiate appropriate action against the 1st and 8th respondents. e) to direct the respondents to draw and disburse salary to the petitioner from 2.11.1998 within 12% interest. f) to direct the respondents to post the petitioner immediately to the C.M.S. High School Pallom giving preference contemplated under Rule 10(1) Chapter XIVA KER and order No.PT4/91464/01/K.Dis dated 25.1.2002 of the DPI.” 4. In his counter affidavit, the 1st respondent Manager would take the stand that posting of teachers is the prerogative of the Manager, which cannot be questioned by the teachers. He submits that on 2.11.1998 two vacancies of Lower Grade Hindi Teacher (FT) arose; one regular vacancy in the Kalavancode School and a temporary vacancy in the Mallappally School. According to him, although as the senior claimant the petitioner was entitled to be appointed in the regular vacancy, on her verbal request she was accommodated in the temporary vacancy at Mallappally and one Smt.Rachel James was posted in the o.p.38429/02 7 Kalavancode School in the regular vacancy from 2.11.1998, who was later transferred to Puthupally School from 1.6.1999. The 6th respondent was appointed in the Kalavancode School, where she continued up to 6.10.1999. When a regular vacancy arose at Pallom School, the 6th respondent was transferred to that vacancy with effect from 7.10.1999, which was prior to Ext.P3 Government Order which stipulated that leave substitutes shall be regularised against the 1st arising regular/permanent vacancy. The 1st respondent alleges that it was only then that the petitioner started complaining about posting. However, by Ext.R1(a) dated 26.5.2000, the petitioner was accommodated in a regular vacancy in the Mallappally School itself by creating a regular vacancy by transferring another teacher Smt. Sherly Thomas. The Manager would contend that although the problems should have stopped there, the petitioner chose to embark on a series of litigation. 5. In compliance with Ext.P5 order of the D.P.I. dated 25.1.2002, by Ext.R1(b) order dated 8.2.2002, the petitioner was appointed in the Kalavancode School, since the same was the first arising vacancy to which the petitioner could have been o.p.38429/02 8 accommodated. But the petitioner did not join duty there and the A.E.O., by Ext.R1(c) order dated 16.4.2002 refused to approve the said appointment. The 1st respondent claims that the arrangement made by Ext.R1(b) order was approved by the Deputy Director by Ext.R1(d) dated 7.5.2002. However, for the convenience of the petitioner, by Ext.R1(e) order dated 3.6.2002, the petitioner was transferred to Mallappally School. The 1st respondent alleges that the petitioner refused to join duty there, in spite of Ext.R1(f) direction to join duty there, dated 11.6.2002, which was reported to the D.P.I. by Ext.R1(g) dated 14.6.2002. Under the said circumstances, at the request of parents of the students, Smt. V. Thankamma, a retired teacher was engaged to take classes for the students. The Manager submits that despite Exts.R1(h), R1(i) and R1(j) the petitioner refused to join duty. He further submits that as directed in Ext.P6 order of the D.P.I., an enquiry was conducted and Exts.R1(k) and R1(l) reports were forwarded to the D.P.I. He therefore submits that at present there is no vacancy at Pallom and in next arising vacancies posting in accordance with seniority would be considered. On these averments, the Manager seeks to justify his actions. o.p.38429/02 9 6. The 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit supporting the case of the Manager and taking the stand that her transfer to Pallom has been validly made and is not liable to be interfered with. 7. The respondents 3 and 5 also have filed counter affidavits in which also the right of the petitioner to be appointed to a regular vacancy in preference to the 6th respondent is not disputed. But they would submit that since the 1st vacancy arose at Kalavancode School, in accordance with Ext.P5, the petitioner is entitled to be accommodated only there and her claim for transfer to Pallom is not valid since transfer is the prerogative of the Manager. But the counter affidavits do not throw any light on the dispute as to who is at fault in the matter of the petitioner's not joining duty at Mallappally. 8. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner refuting the averments in the counter affidavits. She would submit that since the A.E.O. refused approval for her appointment at Kalavancode, she could not have joined duty there. According to her, therefore, the first vacancy is at Pallom and therefore, she has a right to be appointed in that vacancy. o.p.38429/02 10 She also submits that since under Rule 10 of Chapter XIVA, the chief and foremost criterion for transfer is seniority, she being senior to the 6th respondent had a right to be transferred to Pallom in preference to the 6th respondent. She reiterates that she could not join duty at Mallappally since she was not permitted to do so by the Principal, on the instructions of the Manager, in the pretext of want of relieving order from Kalavancode School. 9. Before considering the rival contentions it is necessary to advert to what happened during the pendency of the original petition pursuant to interim orders of this Court. In view of the dispute as to the reasons for the petitioner joining duty at Mallappally, in C.M.P. No.64929/2002, this Court passed the following order dated 28.2.2003: “Heard both sides. This is a petition for payment of salary to the petitioner in the post of Lower Grade Hindi Teacher from 02.11.1998. The 1st respondent submits that the petitioner has not so far joined duty at C.M.S. Higher Secondary School, Mallappally, pursuant to Ext.R1(e. The petitioner denies the said allegation and it is asserted by her that when she reported, she was not admitted to duty in the above said school, by the 8th respondent under the pretext that she has not produced the relieving order from the previous school. 2. The petitioner shall report before the 8th respondent on o.p.38429/02 11 05.03.03 along with a copy of this order. In that event, the said respondent shall admit the petitioner to duty in that school without insisting for any other documents such as relieving order. The 8th respondent shall claim the salary legally due to the petitioner by presenting appropriate bills before the 4th respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In that event, the 4th respondent will pass those salary bills in accordance with law without delay.” Pursuant thereto, the petitioner joined duty on 4.3.2003. Still, salary of the petitioner was not disbursed. Therefore, this court again passed the following order dated 6.4.2003. “Advocate Shri Babu Varghese, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the salary payable to the petitioner for the period from November 2, 1998 to June 4, 2000 has to be disbursed by the Assistant Educational Officer, Cherthala and the salary for the period from June 5, 2000 to February 11, 2002 has to be disbursed by the District Educational Officer, Thirvualla. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances, the following interim directions are issued: i. The Assistant Educational Officer, Cherthala is directed to disburse the salary of the petitioner for the period from November 2, 1998 to June 4, 2000 within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ii. Similarly, District Educational Officer, Thiruvalla, shall disburse the salary payable to the petitioner for the period from June 5, 2000 to February 11, 2002 within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iii. However, salary for the disputed period, viz. from February 12, 2002 to March 4, 2003 shall not be disbursed to the petitioner for the time being. iv. The Assistant Educational Officer and the District Educational Officer shall disburse the salary to the petitioner on condition that she executes a bond before the officers concerned, undertaking to repay the said amount to the department, if ultimately it is found that she is not entitled to get the same. o.p.38429/02 12 v. As far as the salary for the period from March 5, 2003 onwards is concerned, the District Educational Officer, Thiruvalla shall take immediate steps to disburse the same to the petitioner. The entire arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. vi. The Director of Public Instructions shall ensure that the Assistant Educational Officer, Cherthala and the District Educational Officer, Thiruvalla comply with the above directions. 2. Advocate Shri. Babu Varghese, learned counsel for the Manager submits that the Head Masters of the respective schools where the petitioner had worked shall do the needful promptly. This submission is recorded. 10. In view of the above developments only two issues remain to be decided in this case. The first is as to because of whose fault the petitioner was kept out of service from 12.2.2002 to 4.3.2003 and whether the petitioner is entitled to salary for the said period. The second is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to transfer to the Pallom school in preference to the 6th respondent. 11. From the facts narrated above it is for everybody to see that there is some bad blood between the petitioner and the 1st respondent Manager. It is not disputed that by Ext.R1(b) order dated 8.2.2002 the petitioner was posted at Kalavancode School, that she did not join there and that the said appointment was refused to be approved. Thereafter by Ext.R1(e) order dated o.p.38429/02 13 3.6.2002, she was again transferred to Mallappally School. The petitioner's allegation is that she was not allowed to join duty there insisting on a relieving order from Kalavancode School. According to her, since the petitioner never joined at Kalavancode School and the said appointment was not approved by the A.E.O., she could not have produced a relieving order from that School. On the other hand, the Manager contends that the petitioner refused to join duty at Mallappally. But significantly he is silent as to whether or not a relieving order from the Kalavancode School was insisted upon. At the same time in Ext.R1(g) letter dated 14.6.2002 from the Manager to the D.P.I. it is stated thus: “........ It is understood that M/s. Josephine Sherly Paul has not reported for duty so far in CMS HSS Mallapally with relieving order from the Headmistress K.M.U.P. School Kalavancode. ” (underlining supplied) Again in Ext.R1(k) letter dated 20.11.2002 from him to the D.P.I., he again states thus: “2. On enquiry, it is learnt that the Principal was wholeheartedly willing to admit Smt. Josephine Sherly Paul in C.M.S. Higher Secondary School, Mallappally with effect from 6.6.2002 as ordered in this office order No.5203/02 dated 3.6.2002 eventhough the teacher does not produce the relieving order from the parent school. ie. K.M.U.P. School, Kalavancode”. (underlining supplied) o.p.38429/02 14 Again in Ext.R1(l) letter dated 23.11.2002 to the D.P.I., he again states: “........The Principal requested several times to join even without the relieving order .........”. From the above it is fairly evident that at some point of time the Manager and the Principal had insisted on the petitioner producing the relieving order, which the petitioner could not have produced since she never joined at Kalavancode School. It is also pertinent to note that although in the letters addressed to the D.P.I., it was stated that the petitioner was asked to join duty without the relieving order, in none of the communications namely, Exts.R1(h), R1(i), R1(j) and Ext.P9 addressed to the petitioner, it was stated so. At the same time, the petitioner has been complaining repeatedly that she is not being permitted to join duty, as is clear from Ext.P7 and Ext.P10. She had also filed complaints before the D.P.I. on several occasions as is clear from Ext.P6 order dated 23.10.2002, in which the D.P.I. had directed the Manager to conduct an enquiry into the allegation. The order of this Court dated 28.2.2003 would show that she had made the very same complaint before this Court. These circumstances o.p.38429/02 15 are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was willing to join duty, and did everything in her capacity in that regard. Although the above circumstances would cast a strong suspicion that the Principal and the Manager were acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner and I am inclined to hold in favour of the petitioner, I am giving the benefit of doubt to the 1st respondent, by not directing the Government to recover the salary to be paid to the petitioner, from the Manager and the Principal, in view of the fact that the Government did not have to pay salary to another teacher in the place of the petitioner. Therefore, I direct that the petitioner's service for the period from 12.2.2002 to 4.3.2003 at C.M.S. Higher Secondary School Mallappally be regularised and salary for the said period also be disbursed to the petitioner. The competent educational officer among the respondents shall pass orders approving the said period of service also within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the Principal shall draw and disburse the salary of the petitioner for the said period along with her salary for the succeeding month. Needless to say, the interim orders are made o.p.38429/02 16 absolute and shall form part of this judgment. 12. The other question to be considered is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be accommodated at the Pallom School in preference to the 6th respondent. As admitted by all respondents, the petitioner is