IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19451 of 2006(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SABU U, STAR,VAYAKKAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT (HSST, COMMERCE, CSI, VHS & HSS FOR DEAF, VALAKOM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.T.S.RAJASENAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CORPORATE MANAGER FOR LMS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOLS, LMS COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, CSI, VHS AND HSS FOR THE DEAF VALAKOM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. MARIAMMA.D, HSST (MALAYALAM), CSI, VHS AND HSS FOR THE DEAF, VALAKOM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. RACHEL MATHEW, HSST (COMMERCE), CSI VHS AND HSS FOR THE DEAF, VALAKOM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. JOSEKUTTY.D, HSST (ECONOMICS) CSI, VHS & HSS FOR THE DEAF, VALAKOM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. W.P.(C). NO.19451/2006-N: 8. JESSY ALEXANDER, HSST (POLITICAL SCIENCE), CSI, VHS, & HSS FOR THE DEAF, VALAKOM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. *ADDL.R9. IMPLEADED: 9. GIRIJA L.J, ROHINI, VALAKOM.P.O., KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DIST., *IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R9. AS PER THE ORDER DTD. 01/09/06 IN I.A. 12165/06. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA, R3 BY ADVS. MR.S.M.PREM, MR.V.VIJULAL, R4 BY ADV. MR. R.T. PRADEEP, R5 & R6 ADVS. MR.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, MR.S.VISHNU, ADDL.R9 BY ADVS MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR, MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.19451/2006-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO. SKD/CM/HSS/D/474/2001 DTD. 02/06/2001. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER NO. ACD B3/19299/HSE/D. DTD. 29/11/03 BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT)1364/98 G. EDN. DTD. 30/03/1998 OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT).NO.1852/2004/G. EDN. DTD. 15/05/2004 OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT).NO.1664/2005/G. EDN. DTD. 26/04/2005 OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ACD.B3/19299/HSE/2005 DTD. 10/09/2005 BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT).NO.4264/2005/G. EDN. DTD. 30/08/2005 OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. DTD. 30/06/2004. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. DT. 10/12/2004. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 DTD. 15/06/2006. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE JOINING SERVICE DETAILS BY THE R.4. DTD. 07/02/2004. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE OF THE CSI VHSS FOR THE DEAF SCHOOL, VALAKOM NO.A/61/08/SS DTD. 28/01/2008. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE R.2. BY THE R.3. NO. A/61/08/SS DT. 11/02/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R5.(1): COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.1364/1998/G. EDN. DTD. 30/03/1998. EXT.R5.(2): COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 11/10/2000. EXT.R5.(3): COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 06/06/2001. W.P.(C). NO.19451/2006-N: EXT.R5.(4): COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 02/06/2001. EXT.R5.(5): COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.289/1999/G. EDN. DTD. 25/11/1999. EXT.R5.(6): COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.341/1999/G. EDN. DTD. 30/12/1999. EXT.R5.(7): COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.91/2007/G. EDN. DTD. 07/05/2007. EXT.R5.(8): COPY OF THE ORDER NO. TRO/05/6074/HSE/2006 DTD. 07/06/2006 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.19451 OF 2006 (N) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The issue in this writ petition mainly centers around the seniority assigned to respondents 5 to 8 over the petitioner. 2. Petitioner submits that he was appointed as HSST in the 4th respondent's school coming under the 3rd respondent corporate management with effect from 6.6.2001. By Ext.P2 his appointment was approved with effect from 6.7.2001 as HSST junior. It is stated that on 6.6.2001 itself respondents 5 to 8 were also appointed as HSST. According to the petitioner respondents 5 to 8 had only less than 50% marks in the Post Graduate Examination and did not have SET qualification. In so far as respondents 6 to 7 are concerned, it is stated that they acquired SET qualification only on 21.12.2002. Petitioner submits that approval of appointment of respondents 5 and 8 were rejected and that the appointments of respondents 6 and 7 were approved with effect from 30.12.2002 by Ext.P2 order. 3. It would appear that respondents 5 and 8 represented to the 2nd respondent against the refusal to approve their appointment. WPC.No.19451/06 :2 : Referring to Ext.P3 Government order dated 30.3.1998, Ext.P4 order was issued by the 2nd respondent on 15.5.2004 ordering approval of the appointment of respondents 5 and 8 with effect from 6.6.2001. When Ext.P4 was issued, respondents 6 and 7 also submitted representations and on the representations, Ext.P5 Government Order was issued and consequently by Ext.P6 order issued by the 2nd respondent their appointment was approved with effect from 6.6.2001. As a result of all the above, according to the petitioner, though he was the only qualified candidate as on 6.6.2001, he became junior to respondents 5 to 8, who according to him were unqualified at the time of their appointment. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner submitted Exts.P8, P9 and P10 representations to the Director and as there was no response this writ petition is filed. 4. In the counter affidavit filed, respondents are relying heavily on Ext.P3. According to the respondents, by Ext.P3 Government had ordered that in respect of appointments of HSST in Deaf School, qualification shall be Post Graduate with 45% mark in all subjects with B. Ed and Special Training to teach the hearing WPC.No.19451/06 :3 : impaired. It is stated that although, respondents 5 to 8 did not possess SET qualification on the date of occurrence of vacancy on their appointment, in view of Ext.P3 Government Order they were qualified to be appointment. 5. However, counsel for the petitioner refers to me the last clause in Ext.P3 Government Order which says that the Director of Higher Secondary Education will ensure that when appointment of candidates with the qualification of Post Graduation with 45% marks with B.Ed and special training are made, there is no candidate possessing P.G degree with 2nd class and special training available. Petitioner states that since he is a Post Graduate with second class and special training, even in spite of Ext.P3, his claim for seniority could not have been overlooked and seniority could not have been assigned to respondents 5 to 8. 6. Therefore, the controversy in the writ petition is primarily regarding the seniority which the petitioner claims over respondents 5 to 8. In my view this seniority claim is a matter for the 2nd respondent to examine in the light of the saving provision contained in Ext.P3 referred to above. WPC.No.19451/06 :4 : Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it will be open to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the 2nd respondent claiming the benefit of the saving provision in Ext.P3 and seniority over respondents 5 to 8. It is directed that if such a representation is received, the Director shall issue notice to the petitioner and respondents 4 to 8 and decide the seniority claim of the petitioner over respondents 5 to 8. It is directed that, if a representation is received within 3 weeks from today along with copy of the judgment, the same shall be decided in the manner as directed above, within 8 weeks thereafter. The other contentions raised by the parties are left open. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/