IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial review must focus on the decision-making process, not on reassessing merits; seniority and proper procedures govern appointments.

JUDGMENT :

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

These appeals are preferred by Smt.Jisha John against a common judgment arising from the writ petitions filed by her and one Shri Mohammed Basheer K. respectively.

2. Both Jisha John and Mohammed Basheer K. are eligible to be appointed in the vacancy of Higher Secondary School Teacher (English) (“HSST”) from by transfer quota of High School Assistant in a vacancy that arose at Imbichi Koya Thangal Higher Secondary School, Cherukulamba, in Malappuram District. Jisha John, admittedly, is the senior. The Regional Deputy Director of the Higher Secondary Education Department, Malappuram, found that Mohammed Basheer’s appointment as HSST (English) lacked transparency and overlooked the claim of Jisha John. Consequently, the approval was rejected. The Government, in a revision filed by Mohammed Basheer challenging the order of the Regional Deputy Director, affirmed the order of the Regional Deputy Director. This was questioned before the learned Single Judge by Mohammed Basheer. In the writ petition filed by Jisha John she also claimed appointment to the above post of HSST. The learned Single Judge, by the common judgment, reversed the orders of the Regional Deputy Director and the Government, allowed the writ petition filed by Mohammed Basheer, and dismissed the writ petition filed by Jisha John.

3. We heard Adv.V.A.Muhammed appearing for Jisha John and Dr.George Abraham for Mohammed Basheer. We have gone through the orders passed by the Regional Deputy Director as well as the Government. We find that fact findings were made based on materials and after perusing the records. The question is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in exercising the power of judicial review or not.

4. The vacancy of HSST arose consequent upon the retirement of Smt.Alice Joseph on 31/05/2015. There is no dispute to the fact that Jisha John is the senior claimant. Under Chapter XXXII Rule 4(2)(2)(ii) of the Kerala Education Rules, an appointment to the post of HSST from by transfer quota is based on seniority and merit. In Gigimol v. Director of Higher Secondary Education [2008 1 KLT 278], this Court observed that seniority and suitability does not mean comparative assessment of suitability. That means, the senior will have to be preferred with no other disability attached to the seniority. Suitability has to be understood as a prescription for exclusion for any reason, and not for comparison of applicants who applied for the post.

5. The Regional Deputy Director found that no one had responded to the alleged public notice issued by the Manager inviting applications to the post of HSST (English) except Mohammed Basheer, who was the lone applicant. The Manager’s case was that a public notice was given and Jisha John did not respond to the notification nor attended the interview. The Manager further contended that Jisha John had relinquished her claim for the post. Jisha John has a case that the Manager misused her signed blank paper with an ulterior motive.

6. The findings of fact rendered by Regional Deputy Director are as follows:

i. No public notice was issued by the Manager inviting applications;

ii. There were many qualified teachers working in the school as per the seniority list who are eligible to apply, and;

iii. The alleged relinquishment of Jisha John was not counter signed by the District Education Officer, Malappuram

7. The Government in the revisional order particularly noted a Circular laying the procedure for relinquishment of a claim. This Circular was issued on 6/1/1997. The procedure noted in the revisional order is reproduced hereunder:

1.Whenever the Manager intends to appoint or promote a person other than the senior claimant, the Manager shall obtain a written consent in advance from such senior claimant renouncing his/her claim either permanently or temporarily.

2. In the case of temporary relinquishments the period of relinquishment should necessarily be furnished in the relinquishment letter.

3. Such