Respondents 4 and 5, if they think fit, will be free to proceed against the Manager for recovering any amount paid to the second respondent in accordance with law.
The first respondent is directed to appoint the petitioner as Headmistress with effect from 01.06.1994 and she will be entitled to all companysequential benefits arising out of that appointment in accordance with law.
3409 of 1999 is affirmed subject to the above directions regarding equitable relief with respect to drawal of salary.
6, it was directed that although she should be appointed as Headmistress with effect from 01.06.1994, but would number be entitled to arrears of salary from the said date upto the retirement of Respondent No.2.
It was directed We fully agree with the learned single Judge.
Respondent No.
2 and 6 herein.
He was declared a protected teacher from 01.06.1989.
He upon obtaining leave in this behalf, preferred an intra court appeal, inter alia, on the premise that his case should have been companysidered for appointment in the post of Headmaster, as he had the requisite qualifications therefor.
While discharging his duties as a teacher, Appellant applied for and granted study leave for higher studies for two years with effect from 01.06.1991.
In regard to the claim of Respondent No.
Respondent No.
There were two companytenders therefor, Respondent Nos.
The post of Headmaster in the said school fell vacant on or about 01.06.1994.
2 admittedly had retired during the pendency of the writ appeal.
Arrears and other benefits as per the observations in this judgment should be paid to the fifth respondent who is the petitioner in O.P. No.4017 of 2002 within three months from the date of receipt of a companyy of this judgment and she should be posted as headmistress and appointment order with effect from 1.6.1994 shall be issued on or before 1st August, 2005.
The Manager of the School has number preferred any petition for grant of special leave before us.
The School in question is said to be a minority institution within the meaning of clause 1 of Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
A writ petition was also filed by the Manager, inter alia, praying for dropping the proceeding to recover the loss suffered by the Government.
Various writ petitions were filed by the parties hereto before the Kerala High Court at various stages as the companypetent authority, either itself or pursuant to the directions made by the High Court in the writ petitions, passed diverse orders from time to time.
If the said period is excluded for the purpose of companyputing teaching experience as envisaged under Rule 45 of the Rules, the question of his being companysidered for promotion to the post of Headmaster would number arise.
2 was appointed in the said post.
2 or Respondent No.
The Manager of the School also preferred a writ appeal against that part of the judgment wherein an observation in relation to the recovery of the amount paid to Respondent No.
2 joined the School on 16.07.1969.
The petitioner herein is the fifth respondent in OP No.
A post of Headmaster in the said institution governed by the said Act and the rules was to be filled up in terms of Rules 44 and 45 of the Rules.
P4 passed by the Government in O.P. No.
2 had been made by the learned Single Judge.
As the history of the litigations may number be very material for our purpose, we may only numberice that ultimately the writ petition filed by Respondent No.6 herein claiming a preferential right of appointment to the post of Headmaster vis vis Respondent No.2 was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court by a judgment and order dated 08.04.2002, directing This Original Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint her as Headmistress with effect from 01.06.1994 and to grant her all companysequential benefits.
2 was wrongly appointed, in view of the fact that she had been performing her duties, directed that the amount paid to her may number be recovered.
He remained on leave upto 28.02.1993.
A primary school known as P.M.D. Upper Primary School was established in the year 1917.
Appellant herein was number a party in any of the proceedings initiated by Respondent No.
Arising out of S.L.P. Civil No.
22003 of 2005 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
It is an educational institution governed by the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder known as Kerala Education Rules for short, the Rules .
Respondent No.
Appellant herein joined the school as a Drawing teacher on 17.07.1978 and has been working on a regular basis only with effect form 02.06.1980.
