P.T. MARY Vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short point in the K.E.R.arises for consideration in this case.A teacher gets an intermanagement transfer.Later,both the schools come under a corporate educational agency.In the common seniority list of teachers prepared by the corporate educational agency can the teacher insist that her rank should be fixed on the basis of her total continuous service in both the schools.

(2.) THE petitioner's continuous qualified service started from 11th June 1956 when she was appointed as an L.P.S.A.in the S.H.J.L.P.School,Elanthikara.The petitioner got an intermanagement transfer under rule 11 of Chapter XIV(A)of the K.E.R.to the St.Mary's L.P.School,Karur.From 6th August 1963 the petitioner began to work in that school.The 4th respondent has continuous qualified service as an L.P.S.A in the St.Mary's L.P.School,Karur from 1st July 1958.On 31st March 1971 the Corporate Educational Agency,Diocese of Trichur was formed.Then both the above schools,which till then were under two different educational agencies,were brought under the above corporate educational agency.The 3rd respondent -corporate manager prepared the provisional seniority list.The petitioner was ranked above the 4th respondent on the basis of her total continuous service in both the schools.The 4th respondent objected to the ranking.The 1st respondent "Deputy Director of Public Instruction upheld the 4th respondent's objection by Ext.P -1 order.The petitioner challenged Ext.P -1 before the 2nd respondent "State by Ext.P -2 appeal.But the 2nd respondent rejected Ext.P -2 appeal by Ext.P -3 order holding that the petitioner cannot count her service before the intermanagement transfer for the purposes of seniority.The petitioner has challenged the above orders in this original petition.A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2.The order of the District Educational Officer,Irinjalakuda dated 24th July 1963 sanctioning the petitioner's transfer to St.Mary's L.P.School,Karur has been produced as Ext.R -1.

(3.) THE petitioner joined the staff of the St.Mary's L.P.School,Karur by an intermanagement transfer under rule 11 of Chapter XIV(A)of the K.E.R.sanctioned as per Ext.R -1 memo of the District Educational Officer.This takes the wind out of the sails of the petitioner's contention that both the schools were under the same corporate educational agency at the time of the transfer.As per rule 13,on 6th August 1963 when the petitioner joined the St.Mary's L.P.School she became junior to the juniormost L.P.S.A.already on the staff there.Thereafter,the Corporate Educational Agency of the Diocese of Trichur was formed by including in it both the schools and other schools in the diocese.At any rate,the formation of a corporate educational agency for all the schools in the diocese cannot enable the petitioner to claim seniority over her seniors in the unit in which she was working at that time.In the St.Mary's L.P.School the 4th respondent was senior to the petitioner.In view of rule 13,continuous service under rule 37(1)in the case of a teacher who got an intermanagement transfer,can only take in service after the transfer.The fact that both the schools later came under an educational agency formed after the transfer makes no difference.Not only that,the criterion for seniority as per rule 37(1)is 'length of continuous service in that grade in that unit ' ;.Before the formation of the new corporate educational agency St.Mary's L.P.School in which the petitioner was working was a unit.As per rules 13 and 37(1 ),for seniority the petitioner's service in that school alone can be counted.No lengthening of that service is possible by the formation of the new educational agency.Rule 36A or Rule 37 should not be read in isolation.Rule 13 also should be read along with those rules.Therefore,it follows that the petitioner cannot claim seniority over the 4th respondent who was admittedly senior to her on the staff of the St.Mary's School when the new educational agency was formed.The impugned orders are perfectly legal and valid.