Reshma Melath vs Manager, Rajah'S High School
2021 Latest Caselaw 14094 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 25091 OF 2012
PETITIONER:
           RESHMA MELATH
           W/O. RAJESH K.E., LPSA, RAJAH'S AUP SCHOOL,
           ACHAMTHURUTHY, CHERUVATHUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

          BY ADV SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN


RESPONDENTS:
     1     MANAGER, RAJAH'S HIGH SCHOOL,NILESWAR
           KASARAGOD-671 314.

    2     THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER
          KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD-671 315.

    3     THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
          CHERUVATHUR, KASARAGOD-671 313.

    4     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., GENERAL EDUCATION
          DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

    5     SMT. JISHA P.V.
          D/O. C.H.DAMODARAN, NOW WORKING AS UPSA AT RAJAH'S HIGH
          SCHOOL, NILESWAR, RESIDING AT CHIRAYIL HOUSE,
          PALLIKKARA, NILESWAR, KASARAGOD-671 314.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.K.V.RAJENDRAN
          SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
          SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
          SMT.N.SANTHA
          SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON


          SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 25091 OF 2012
                                      2



                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner appears to have approached this Court,

through this writ petition, under an apprehension that she may

lose her seniority over the 5th respondent, because both of them

were appointed on the same date, namely, 06.06.2006. The

petitioner alleges that there is an attempt to obtain the approval of

the 5th respondent with effect from that day, which will, in turn,

entail loss of her seniority.

2. However, when this matter was called today,

Smt.Annapoorna - learned counsel appearing for the 5th

respondent, submitted that the afore voiced apprehension of the

petitioner has no legs to stand on when one looks through

Ext.R5(a), wherein, it has been categorically stated that her client

would get continuous officiating service only with effect from

13.06.2007.

In the afore circumstances, I am of the view that nothing WP(C) NO. 25091 OF 2012

survives in this writ petition and therefore, close it without any

further orders.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS/07/07/2021 WP(C) NO. 25091 OF 2012

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 6-6-2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4-6-2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTEMNT AND APPROVAL OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 01.10.2012

IT P4 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-3-2012 IN R.P.NO.138 OF 2012 IN W.P.(C) NO.607 OF

T P5 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2007 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 28.08.2008 IN WP(C)NO.7296 OF 2008 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.10.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETIIONER BEFIRE THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-

EXHIBIT R5A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3/6062/2011 DATED 30.10.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

//TRUE COPY// P..A TO JUDGE