IMPORTANT POINT
Amendment to seniority rules does not retroactively affect previously approved appointments, reinforcing the principle that seniority is determined by first appointment date.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.19703 of 2019 filed this intra court appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 10.07.2023, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P3 to P5 orders and to declare that the appellant is senior to the 6^th respondent as per Rule 37 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (‘KER’ for short), and therefore entitled to be promoted to the post of Headmaster in preference to the 6^th respondent.

2. The appellant entered service as a High School Assistant (‘HSA’ for short) (Natural science) in the school of the 5^th respondent on 04.06.2007. The 6^th respondent was also appointed as HSA (Mathematics) in the same school on the same date. The date of birth of the appellant is 16.05.1973, and that of the 6^th respondent is 28.05.1974. According to the appellant, since the 6^th respondent is younger than the appellant, she is to be treated as senior to the 6^th respondent as stipulated in Rule 37(2) of Chapter XIVA of the KER. When the 5^th respondent prepared a provisional seniority list showing the appellant as Junior to the 6^th respondent, the appellant submitted objections to the provisional seniority list. She has also filed a complaint before the 4^th respondent. By Ext.P2 order dated 17.04.2017, the 4^th respondent declared the appellant as Senior to the 6^th respondent. Challenging Ext.P2 order, the 6^th respondent filed an appeal before the 3^rd respondent Deputy Director of Education. By Ext.P3 order dated 27.06.2017, the 3^rd respondent allowed the appeal holding that the 6^th respondent is Senior to the appellant, stating the reason that the 6^th respondent had worked in the U.P Section of the school from 23.11.1998 to 31.03.1999 in a leave vacancy and hence her first appointment was prior to the appointment of the appellant. The appellant challenged Ext.P3 order before the 2^nd respondent Director of Public Instructions and by Ext.P4 order dated 16.09.2017, the 2^nd respondent confirmed the finding in Ext.P3 order. The appellant again filed a revision before the 1^st respondent under Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA of the KER. However, the revision was dismissed by Ext.P5 order dated 29.03.2019. Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court with the writ petition.

3. Respondents 1, 4, and 6 filed separate counter affidavits dated 20.01.2020, 19.09.2022, and 06.10.2021, respectively, in the writ petition opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition. Along with the respective counter affidavits, the fourth respondent produced Ext.R4(a), and the 6^th respondent produced Exts.R6(a) to R6(c) documents. With an affidavit dated 26.10.2021, the 5^th respondent produced Exts.R5(A) to R5(C) documents.

4. To the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st and 4^th respondents, the appellant filed reply affidavits dated 25.03.2022 and 05.10.2022 respectively.

5. To the documents filed by the 5^th respondent, the appellant filed a counter affidavit dated 25.03.2022, producing therewith Exts.P6 to P9(A) documents.

6. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and appreciating the materials on record, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent, and also the learned counsel for the 6^th respondent.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the 6^th respondent was granted seniority over the appellant for the reason that she had worked temporarily in th