VALSA P. Vs. SUJAMOL S.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed challenging the judgment dated 20/03/2017 of the learned Single Judge allowing WP (C) No. 29700 of 2016. WA No. 1385 of 2017 is filed by the 6th respondent in the Writ Petition while WA No. 1552 of 2017 is filed by respondents 4 and 5, who are the Manager and the Principal respectively of the CSI Vocational Higher Secondary School, Thiruvalla, an aided school. The dispute relates to the appointment of a Matron to the Women's Hostel of the Higher Secondary Section. The learned Single Judge has directed the first respondent in both the appeals who was the Writ Petitioner, to be appointed. The appellants challenge the said direction in these appeals.

(2.) The Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent staking a claim for being appointed to one of the posts sanctioned as per exhibit P3 Government Order. As per exhibit P3, sanction was granted for creation of two posts of Matron (one male and one female) at the CSI Vocational Higher Secondary School for the Deaf, Thiruvalla with immediate effect. According to the first respondent, she was appointed as a Matron in the Vocational Higher Secondary School Hostel attached to the school referred to above in the year 2008. It is stated that she has been continuing there ever since. She was earlier working as a Matron in the High School Sec. from July 2005 onwards. Considering the need for a Matron in the hostel, which is a school for the deaf, she had been appointed by the Manager. As per exhibit P1 dated 18/11/2010, the Principal of the School requested the third respondent to recommend to the Government to sanction a new post of Matron so that the first respondent's appointment could be approved. As per exhibit P2, the third respondent recommended the request. It was pursuant to exhibit P2 that exhibit P3 was issued. The complaint of the first respondent was that, after the issue of exhibit P3, the Manager refused to forward the proposal for regularisation and approval of her appointment. Therefore, the Writ Petition was filed seeking appropriate orders for approval of appointment of the first respondent.

(3.) The Writ Petition was contested by the respondents. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 who are the appellants in WA No. 1552 of 2017. According to the Manager and the Principal, the first respondent was not appointed as Matron, as contended by her. She was only engaged on temporary basis and such engagement would not confer on her any benefit or entitlement for claiming appointment to the post sanctioned as per exhibit P3. At the same time, it was pointed out that, the 6th respondent in the Writ Petition who is the appellant in WA No. 1385 of 2017 was a Matron whose appointment had been approved by the authorities and who was terminated due to want of vacancy. The stand of the Manager and the Principal was that she had a better claim for being appointed to the post.