Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
LIJO JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to seniority based on service (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. counterarguments supporting the 6th respondent's seniority (Para 7) |
| 3. court observes on service continuity (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. final ruling on seniority dispute (Para 11) |
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 6th 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 6th 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 6th respondent filed W.P.(C) No.11762/2005 and this Court directed the respondents to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
