A teacher's continuous absence due to leave without allowance disqualifies them from promotion eligibility, as demonstrated in this ruling on administrative appointments.

JUDGMENT

Competing and opposing claims to the post of Principal/

Administrative Head of the Vocational Higher Secondary School, Karavaram, has led to these writ petitions being filed; with one of the main issues posed being: if a teacher, who has been on leave for more than a decade continuously, would still be eligible to stake a claim to such appointment.

2. Among the four writ petitions, W.P.(C)No. 22171/2020 has been filed by Smt.Priyadarsini S; W.P.(C)No. 22198/2020 has been filed by Sri.S.Hariharan Pillai; W.P.(C) No.23044/2020 has been filed by Smt.Sindhu B. and W.P.(C) No.27668/2020 has been filed by the Manager of the School.

3. Compendiously, the facts without dispute are that Smt.Priyadarsini was appointed as a Vocational Teacher in the School on 01.12.1995; while Sri.Hariharan Pillai was appointed as a Non Vocational Teacher on 03.02.1997. Before Sri.Hariharan Pillai had been so appointed, Smt.Sindhu was appointed as a Non Vocational Teacher (Part-Time) in the School with effect from 29.01.1996 and she asserts that she became a Non Vocational Teacher with effect from 01.07.1996.

4. While so, Smt.Priyadarsini took Leave Without Allowance (LWA) under the provisions of Appendix XIIA and XIIC of Part-I of the Kerala Service Rules ('KSR' for short) for the period from 09.08.2004 to 08.03.2018 and rejoined on 09.03.2018.

5. Subsequent to the rejoining of Smt.Priyadarsini, the vacancy of the Administrative Head/Principal of the School arose on 01.06.2020 and all the three aforementioned Teachers laid a claim to the same. The Manager of the School, however, appointed Sri.Hariharan Pillai as the 'Principal-in-charge' of the School, through order dated 01.06.2020, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P6(a) in W.P.(C)No.22198/2020.

6. Smt.Sindhu, thereupon, laid a claim to be appointed to such vacancy in preference to Sri.Hariharan Pillai, based on the seniority list of Teachers in the School for the year 2017 - a copy of which is on record as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.23044/2020, wherein, she had been shown to be senior to Sri.Hariharan Pillai. Pertinently, Smt.Priyadarsini was not included therein because she was continuing on LWA at that time.

7. The Manager, however, in the meanwhile, appears to have revised the seniority list and published a new one for the year 2018, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P15 along with W.P(C)No. 23044/2020.

8. In this Seniority List, Smt.Priyadarsini is shown to be senior to both Sri.Hariharan Pillai and Smt.Sindhu and Sri.Hariharan Pillai has been shown to be senior to Smt.Sindhu, citing the reason that she became a Non Vocational Teacher only with effect from 05.08.1997. Smt.Sindhu, being aggrieved, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.4046/2020, in which operation of the said List had been initially stayed.

9. However, pending the said lis, the Manager appointed Sri.Hariharan Pillai as the Principal of the School and this was brought to the notice of this Court by Smt.Sindhu in W.P.(C)No.4046/2020.

10. As a result, W.P.(C)No.4046/2020 was disposed of by this Court through judgment dated 15.07.2020, in the following manner:

“The dispute in this writ petition is with respect to the seniority and eligibility for appointment as Principal.

2. The petitioner, who is a Non-Vocational teacher in English claims that she is senior and entitled to be promoted as Principal.

3. At the same time, the 8th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that he is the teacher, eligible for appointment as Principal.

4. The petitioner challenges Ext.P15 seniority list on the ground that the same is prepared in violation of the judgments of this Court and also without referring to the settled seniority.

5. The party respondents have filed counter affidavits and the petitioner has filed a reply affidavi