Kerala High Court
Saramma Joseph vs Secretary To Government on 10 July, 2001
Author: K.A. Abdul Gafoor
Bench: K.A. Abdul Gafoor
JUDGMENT K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.
1. Challenge is against Ext. P2 and P4. There was a seniority dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. That was finally decided in Ext. P2. The petitioner was aggrieved by Ext. P2 and took up the matter before the Government. Government passed Ext. P4. That also is against the petitioner. That is why those orders are under challenge. The petitioner commenced continuous service in the school managed by the third respondent only with effect from 6.6.1979. The 4th respondent was working in another school. He was transferred on inter-management basis to the school managed by the third respondent where the petitioner works, on 23.11.1978. He joined that school on that date. His seniority in that unit has to be counted from that date, as he has continuous service in that school from that date. Going by R. 37 Chapter XIV-A KER, seniority of a teacher in any grade in any unit shall be decided with reference to the length of continuous service in that unit, provided he is fully qualified for the post. Going by this provision, the petitioner's seniority has to be decided with reference to 6.6.1979 when the petitioner admittedly commenced continuous service and that of the 4th respondent shall be decided with reference to 23.11.1978, when he commenced continuous service in that unit. That is what is decided in Ext. P4.
2. True, the petitioner did have a temporary service from 23.8.1978 to 31.3.1979. That cannot have any relevance in the matter of deciding seniority inter-se between the petitioner and 4th respondent. Temporary service put in earlier will have relevance, in terms of sub-r. (2) of R. 37, only if both the teachers commenced continuous service on the same date. Therefore, the earlier temporary service put in by the petitioner during the period from 28.8.1978 to 31.3.1979 cannot have any relevance in deciding the seniority inter-se between these two persons. Having commencement of continuous service on 23.11.1978 as regards the 4th respondent and on 6.6.1979 as regards the petitioner.
3. The contention of the petitioner that she ought not to have been retrenched on 31.3.1979 as the vacancy to which the petitioner had been appointed was a permanent one and therefore she ought to have been retained during vacation also does not deserve consideration at this distance of time, because the claim of the petitioner has been examined well earlier in 1983 and her appointment was directed to be approved as a special case. At that time, this contention was never taken up. It is also not discernible from the G.O. dated 28.7.1983 as to whether the vacancy against which the petitioner was appointed from 23.8.1978 was a permanent one or not. So, after 20 years such a contention cannot be heard from the mouth of the petitioner who did not urge that contention in 1983 when there was dispute regarding approval of appointment itself.
4. The further contention of the petitioner that the 4th respondent also ought not to have been continued during vacation in the year 1978-79 also cannot be examined at present. On 23.11.1978 the 4th respondent was a permanent teacher under another management. He got inter-management transfer to the school managed by the third respondent where the petitioner is now working. The 4th respondent joined that school on 23.11.1978. That being the date of commencement of his continuous service in the school, he can reckon his seniority from the said date. It cannot be now contended that the 4th respondent ought to have been retrenched during the vacation in the year 1978-79. That is a belated contention now put-forth by the petitioner after 20 years.
Therefore, there is no illegality in Ext. P4. The Original Petition fails and is dismissed.