SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, S.A. Bobde, JJ.
The Manager, VKNM Vocational Higher Secondary School – Appellant
Versus
The State of Kerala and others etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 518-519 of 2016 [arising out of SLP(C) Nos.31794-31795 of 2014] With Civil Appeal No. 520 of 2016 [arising out of SLP(C) No.33104 of 2014]
Decided on : 27-01-2016
(2013) 5 SCC 160; AIR 1957 SC 540 – Relied upon
2009 (2) KLT 105; 2010 (2) KLT 99; (1961) 2 SCR 26; (2015) 1 SCC 1 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The 5th respondent worked in the appellant’s school in 3 different spells between 01.10.1997 and 11.03.1998 for a total period of two months and 19 days. Subsequently, when the post of High School Assistant in social science fell vacant in the year 2010 consequent to the retirement of a teacher, the 6th respondent came to be appointed on 01.06.2010 afresh.
The 5th respondent challenged the appointment of the 6th respondent. The appellant rejected the claim of the 5th respondent by relying upon a Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court.
The 5th respondent approached the 2nd respondent which rejected her claim.
The 5th respondent then filed a revision before the 1st respondent who directed the 4th respondent, the District Education Officer to issue necessary formal orders appointing the 5th respondent as high school assistant in the appellant school w.e.f. 01.06.2010.
The appellant challenged the order of the 1st respondent by a writ petition.
The 5th respondent filed a writ petition for implementing the order of the 1st respondent dated 26.11.2011.
The writ petition of the appellant, the 5th respondent and another writ petition filed by another claimant were tagged together for hearing.
In view of conflicting decisions of two Division Benches, the matter was referred to the Full Bench.
The Full Bench dismissed the appointment of the 6th respondent.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
Leave granted.
1. By this judgment, we dispose of Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) No.33104 of 2014 also as both the appeals arise out of the common Full Bench Judgment of the Kerala High Court. The appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No.33104 of 2014 is aggrieved by the Full Bench Judgment of the Kerala High Court which was dismissed and consequently her appointment dated 01.06.2010 in the school of the appellant in Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition Nos.31794-95 of 2014 came to be set aside at the instance of O.T. Indiramma/private respondent. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the parties as arrayed in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.31794 of 2014.
2. The management of private aided school is the appellant before us in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition Nos.31794-95 of 2014. The challenge is to the Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 08.10.2014 while answering a Reference made to it by the Division Bench in view of two conflicting decisions of two other Division Benches and thereby dismissing the appellant’s Writ Petition while allowing the 5th respondent’s Writ Petition. The appellant was directed to issue appointment order to the respondent as a teacher in its school.
3. The brief facts which are required to be noted are that the 5th respondent worked in the appellant’s school in 3 different spells between 01.10.1997 and 11.03.1998 for a total period of two months and 19 days. Subsequently, when the post of High School Assistant in social science fell vacant in the year 2010 consequent to the retirement of a teacher, the 6th respondent came to be appointed on 01.06.2010 afresh. The 5th respondent challenged the appointment of the 6th respondent by relying upon a rule which provided for preferential appointment to some categories of qualified teachers who had the fortune of working earlier in the school. The appellant rejected the claim of the 5th respondent by relying upon a Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court. Aggrieved by the order of the appellant dated 18.09.2010, the 5th respondent approached the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent by its order dated 31.03.2011 rejected her claim. The 5th respondent filed a revision before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent by order dated 26.11.2011 directed the 4th respondent, the District Education Officer to issue necessary formal orders appointing the 5th respondent as high school assistant in the appellant school w.e.f. 01.06.2010. The appellant challenged the order of the 1st respondent by filing a writ petition in W.P. (C) No.32734/2011 before the High Court of Kerala contending that the 5th respondent would not come within the preferential Rule, namely, Rule 51A and consequently the order of the 1st respondent cannot be sustained. The 5th respondent filed a writ petition in W.P. (C) No.2808/2012 for implementing the order of the 1st respondent dated 26.11.2011. The writ petition of the appellant, the 5th respondent and another writ petition in Writ Petition No.24773/2009 filed by another claimant also relying upon Rule 51A were tagged together for hearing.
4. Be that as it may, it is stated that with reference to the implication of Rule 51A in which an amendment came to be made w.e.f. 27.04.2005 read along with amended Rule 7A(3) as there were two conflicting Division Bench decisions, namely, Abdurahiman v. Government of Kerala – 2009 (2) KLT 105 and Maya v. Govt. of Kerala -2010 (2) KLT 99, the Division Bench of the High Court before whom the above writ petitions were posted, referred the matter to a Full Bench. That is how the impugned judgment came to be passed by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court on 08.10.2014.
5. Assailing the judgment, Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the issue was directly covered by a recent decision of this Court reported as State of K
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.