Point of Law: Expression “subject to seniority and suitability,” observed that expression does not mean comparative assessment of suitability and it only means suitability for particular post and suitability is related to prescribed qualification and requisite experience.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner is employed as an HSST (Hindi) at St. Sebastian HSS, Koodaranji, an Aided School governed by the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder and managed by the 4th respondent, Corporate Educational Agency. The grievance projected by the petitioner in this writ petition concerns the 3rd respondent's refusal to grant approval of her appointment with effect from 01.06.2016 onwards. Her request for approval has been rejected by Exhibit P6 order, the relevant portion of which reads as under

2. Exhibit P6 order reveals that the concerned Secretary has rejected the proposal holding that the selection was carried out without constituting a Selection Board consisting of a Government Nominee, and therefore the same is against the extant Rules and orders.

3. Prior to discussing the bare facts, it must be stated that the reasons stated in Exhibit P6 for rejecting the proposal are clearly against the Rules, the Government orders regarding the modalities of appointment by transfer appointees, and against the binding precedents, including Exhibit P8, which is a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court. This Court, while sitting in this jurisdiction, is presented with writ petitions contesting orders of a similar sort, which could have been avoided if the concerned respondent had complied with Government instructions and this Court's rulings. In aided schools, teachers are required to spend time and money before statutory authorities and courts, preventing them from focusing on their divine responsibility of teaching. Unfortunately, Exhibit P7 is issued by the concerned Secretary of the Government, and this fact demonstrates that even at the highest levels, officers are either unprepared or uninformed of the relevant Rules and the law interpreted by this Court based on the provisions of the law. If the concerned authorities do not take immediate action to fix these teething issues, the same situation would continue unabated. Using the insights I have gathered from Smt.Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Senior Government Pleader, and the counsel who represents the petitioners in various cases, I would request the State to initiate immediate measures to resolve the issues.

4. Before venturing to conduct such an exercise, I shall detail the facts of this case in brief:

The records placed before this Court reveal that while the petitioner was working as HSA (Hindi) in the school, a vacancy in the post of HSST arose due to the retirement of a certain Philomena Mathai on 31.05.2016. The Manager promoted the petitioner to the post of HSST (Hindi) with effect from 01.06.2016 as per Exhibit P1 order. The 3rd respondent returned the proposal for approval on the ground that the appointment was not based on recommendations issued by a selection committee in terms of the relevant provisions contained in Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules. In the said circumstances, and to ensure compliance with the directions issued by the 3rd respondent, the Manager undertook a fresh selection after constituting a committee and issued a fresh appointment order as Exhibit P3. The matter was taken up before the Government, and pursuant to directions issued, Exhibit P4 order was issued by the 3rd respondent granting approval to the appointment to the petitioner as HSST (Hindi) by proceedings dated 23.10.2021 with effect from 25.03.2017. The petitioner contends that owing to the above fact, the appointment of the petitioner for the period from 01.06.2016 to 25.03.2017 still remains unapproved. In the said circumstances, the Manager preferred Exhibit P5 revision petition seeking approval from the initial date but the same stands dismissed by Exhibit P6 order issued by the Deputy Secretary for and on behalf of the Government. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs.

i) issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P6.

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ o