The central legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner, as a teacher in a private school, was entitled to receive salary and continuity of service for the period she worked, and the respondents were directed to comply with this entitlement.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the District Elementary Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in the sixth respondent School namely, St.Andrews Primary School, Manakudi-Thurai, Kanyakumari District from 05.06.2008 to 31.05.2012 and disburse grant-in-aid towards her salary and other monetary benefits.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Elementary Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade teacher in the sixth respondent school from 05.06.2008 to 31.05.2012 and disburse grant-in-aid towards her salary and other monetary benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the sixth respondent school is a Private Aided Minority School and it is administered by the fifth respondent Parish Council of St. Andrew's Church, Mela Manakudi, Kanyakumari District. The fifth respondent Parish Council is maintaining a waiting list for registering the names of the candidates, who are only from the Parish of Manakudi aspiring for employment in the sixth respondent school and another school. The candidates would be appointed based on their seniority in the waiting list. The petitioner had registered her name in the waiting list maintained by the fifth respondent in the year 2004. The 9th respondent, namely, C.Ancy Nishanthini, registered her candidature in the waiting list in the year 2005.

3. The sixth respondent school appointed one B.Jeyoni Leena Suji, being in Serial No.1 in the waiting list, on 07.02.2005 in the vacancy caused due to the death of the then incumbent, Mrs.D.Xavier Mary. The subsequent candidates in Serial Nos.2 and 3 relinquished their rights in seeking appointment in view of obtaining job in the Government service. The petitioner was appointed in the school on 05.06.2008 and C.Ancy Nishanthini/9th respondent was appointed in the year 2011. Thereafter, the sixth respondent school has not appointed any person in view of shortage of students strength.

4. According to the petitioner, one post of Secondary Grade teacher fell vacant in the sixth respondent school on 01.04.2008 due to the retirement of the then incumbent, namely, Mrs.R.T.Mary Mabel on 31.03.2008. In that vacancy, A.Josephine Simon was promoted as Headmistress. Since the petitioner is in Serial No.1 in the seniority by post, the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 05.06.2008. At the time of the petitioner's appointment, one Rev.Fr.J.Arul Anand was the Correspondent of the sixth respondent school and the President of the fifth respondent Parish Council. The appointment order would be issued to the candidates only after obtaining approval from the District Elementary Educational Officer and hence, the sixth respondent school has not issued the copy of the appointment order to the petitioner.

5. The sixth respondent school was eligible to have 5 teachers for the academic year 2008-2009 as per the staff fixation order. The following teachers, namely, A.Josephine Simon (Headmistress), A.Mary Angel Berbeth, C.Maria Virgin, B.Jeyoni Leena Suji and L.Hema (petitioner) were working in the sixth respondent school. The sixth respondent school submitted a proposal to the District Elementary Educational Officer requesting to approve the appointment of the petitioner. However, the official respondents did not approve the petitioner's appointment for the reason that the school has not obtained prior permission from the Director of Elementary Education before appointing the petitioner in the sanctioned vacancy and there were various surplus posts available in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Kottar. Since the District Elementary Educational Officer has not approved the appointment of the petitioner, the Correspondent and the Headmistress have instructed the petitioner to sign in the separate “Master Attendance Register” from