THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Poornima – Appellant
Versus
Director of Public Instructions – Respondent
Thottattil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
The petitioner and the 7th respondent were appointed as HSAs in a School under the 4th respondent Corporate Manager. The 7th respondent was appointed for the first time on 22.12.1999, for a spell from 22.12.1999 to 23.2.2000 and the first appointment of the petitioner was on 22.6.2000, for a spell from 22.6.2000 to 1.11.2000. It is stated that the appointment of the petitioner as above was approved by the competent statutory authority on 22.6.2000 while the question regarding the approval of the appointment of the 7th respondent as above continued to be undecided for quite some time. Ultimately, the statutory authority approved the appointment of the 7th respondent by order dated 20.3.2004.
2. Going by the relevant Rule in Chapter XIVA K.E.R., the approval of appointment of the 7th respondent granted as per order dt. 20.3.2004 will relate back to 22.12.1999 and the approved service of the petitioner will be from 22.6.2000. Therefore, it goes without saying that the 7th respondent had, to her credit, an earlier approved service than that of the petitioner.
3. By Ext.P5, the Director of Public Instructions disposed of the dispute between the p
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.