The Court highlights the importance of timely claims for appointments while protecting the right of consideration for qualified candidates against existing vacancies.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2026 The petitioner is now working as HSST (Mathematics)

in the 4^th respondent’s Higher Secondary School with effect from 04.09.2001. She was appointed by transfer from the post of HSA (Mathematics) of the same School as HSST (Junior) Mathematics, the second vacancy in Mathematics and thereafter on the strength of the G.O.(MS)No.351/2004/G.Edn. dated 20.11.2004, she was given the status and salary of HSST (Mathematics) with effect from 04.09.2001.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she should have been appointed by transfer against the first vacancy of HSST (Mathematics) that arose in the School with effect from

09.08.2000 as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. That apart, going by Ext.P2 Government Order dated 25.08.2000 also the Manager should have considered her for appointment by transfer against the first vacancy which arose on 09.08.2000 in preference to Direct Recruitment.

3. The petitioner has also passed SET, as evident from Ext.P3 certificate in the test conducted on 10.06.2000 before the date of occurrence of first vacancy, though pursuant to revaluation based on the directions of this Court dated 28.08.2000 in O.P.No.20408/2000. The petitioner was the only fully qualified HSA (Mathematics) for appointment by transfer against the first vacancy of HSST (Mathematics)

arose in the School as on 09.08.2000.

4. Even as per the directions in G.O.(MS)No.

351/2004/G.Edn. dated 20.11.2004, the Director should have reallocated the first senior/full time post of HSST (Mathematics) arose on 09.08.2000 to the petitioner with effect from 09.08.2000. The Manager should not have resorted to appointment by Direct Recruitment against the first vacancy when the petitioner who is a qualified HSA was working in the High School section of the School, contends the petitioner.

5. Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader denied all the material allegations made by the petitioner. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner is highly belated. The petitioner seeks approval in respect of the period with effect from

09.08.2000, which is about 25 years ago.

6. After hearing the counsel on either side, I find that the petitioner has now preferred Ext.P6 representation before the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent can consider all the aspects including the objections raised by the Government Pleader.

In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four months after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Manager and any other affected parties.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

SR