- (1.)The petitioner is before this Court assailing the communications dated 20.03.2013 and 13.01.2014 which are impugned at Annexures-D and E to the petition. In that light, the petitioner is seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner pursuant to the recommendations dated 04.02.2013 and 07.08.2013 as at Annexures C & F to the petition. In that direction, the petitioner is seeking that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to grant approval for promoting the petitioner to the post of Vice-Principal in the Karnataka Education Board High School being run by the third respondent Board.
(2.)The petitioner and the fourth respondent are serving as Assistant teachers in the school being run by the third respondent-Board. Pursuant to the appointment made by the third respondent-Board, the petitioner joined the services on 01.06.1999 in Vidyaranya High School run by the third respondent-Board while the fourth respondent joined the services on 05.06.1999 and both of them belonged to the ST category. The said appointments made by the third respondent-Board was approved by the competent authority on 31.08.1999. Thereafter both the petitioner and the fourth respondent have been serving the third respondent-Board in the respective schools where they have been working.
(3.)The present issue relates to the appointment of the Vice-Principal to the Karnataka Education Board High School being run by the third respondent-Board. The third respondent- Board who had maintained the seniority list of the Assistant Teachers had shown the petitioner to be senior to the fourth respondent keeping in view that the petitioner had joined the services on 01.06.1999 while the fourth had joined on 05.06.1999. It is in that view the third respondent Board through the recommendation dated 04.02.2013 and 07.08. 2013 as at Annexures-C and F had proposed the name of the petitioner to be appointed as the Vice-Principal. Though such recommendation was sent, the competent authority has through the communication dated 20.03.2013 and 13.01.2014 as at Annexures-D and E keeping in view the regulations made through the notification dated 31.01.2001 have directed that the name of the fourth respondent be recommended to be appointed as the Vice-Principal. The petitioner therefore claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court.