The court affirmed that seniority is determined by the continuity of service, reinforcing the validity of prior rulings.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner, who is a High School Assistant, seeks to quash Ext.P10 and to declare that the petitioner is senior to the 6^th respondent in the seniority list under Chapter XIVA Rule 37(1)(2) KER .

2. The petitioner states that she worked as High School Assistant (HSA) in a leave vacancy for the period from 10.10.2001 to 08.01.2002. Thereafter, she was appointed in a regular vacancy on and from 02.06.2003 as per Ext.P1. Ext.P1 appointment was approved as per Ext.P2 order. From 14.07.2012, the petitioner was working as Cluster Co-ordinator. Later, she was posted as UPSA with effect from 09.10.2014.

3. According to the petitioner, the 6^th respondent was appointed as High School Assistant from 08.06.2001 to 14.07.2002. The said appointment was, however, cancelled by the Director General of Education as per Ext.P4. The 6^th respondent filed W.P.(C) No.11762/2005 and this Court directed the respondents to consider the request for approval. The 1^st respondent granted approval on

25.04.2006 as per Ext.P5.

4. The 6^th respondent was appointed again on

02.06.2003 on a regular basis. The petitioner and the 6^th respondent joined duty on 02.06.2003, on the same day. The petitioner being senior in age, the petitioner should be treated as senior to the 6^th respondent, contends the petitioner. When the 6^th respondent was assigned superior seniority, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation. By Ext.P10 communication, the Director of General Education informed the petitioner that the 6^th respondent has service from

08.06.2001 and hence she will be senior.

5. The petitioner contends that the 6^th respondent does not have continuous service from 08.06.2021. Her continuous service starts only from 02.06.2003. The petitioner is elder than the 6^th respondent.

Hence, the petitioner should be treated as senior.

6. The 6^th respondent resisted the writ petition.

The 6^th respondent stated that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.12460/2006 for re-assignment of seniority and challenging Ext.P5 order. This Court dismissed the writ petition as per Ext.R6(a) judgment dated 19.12.2007. Though the petitioner filed W.A. No.286/2008 against Ext.R6(a) judgment, the writ appeal was dismissed on 26.05.2008, as per Ext.R6(b). The petitioner is trying to re-

agitate a concluded issue.

7. The 4^th respondent-DEO also filed a counter affidavit. The 4^th respondent submitted that the first approved service of the 6^th respondent is from 08.06.2001. The petitioner's approved service is in the maternity leave vacancy of the 6^th respondent. Therefore, the 6^th respondent is senior to the petitioner.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent.

9. The petitioner was initially appointed as HSA (SS) in the maternity leave vacancy of the 6^th respondent from 10.10.2001 to 08.01.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as HSA (SS) from 02.06.2003 onwards in the vacancy of one Smt. Lalitha Bhai. The 6^th respondent was appointed as HSA (SS) in a retirement vacancy from 08.06.2001. The appointment was approved as per order dated 01.07.2006.

10. Therefore, it is evident that the first approved service of the 6^th respondent is from 08.06.2001 and the first approved service of the petitioner as HSA (SS) is in the maternity leave vacancy of the 6^th respondent from 10.10.2001 to 18.01.2002. Therefore, the 6^th respondent is senior to the petitioner.

11. It is further to be noted that agitating claim for seniority, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.12460/2006. This Court found that the 6^th respondent was entitled to have her appointment