LexD. SAROJAKUMARI versus R. HELEN THILAKOM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017] 9 S.C.R. 512 D. SAROJAKUMARI v. R. HELEN THILAKOM & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8345-8346 of2009) SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 [MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.] Estoppel: Application invited for filling up post of Music Teacher on C direct recruitment basis. - Respondent'No. J (already a Music Teacher in one of the schools of the Management-respondent No. 6) participated in the recruitment process - Appointment of appellant - Thereafte1; claim of respondent No. I to promote her on the basis of seniority - Held: Respondent No. J is estopped from challenging D the recruitment drive, after having participated in that - Service Law. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: An advertisement was issued by Respondent No.6, inviting applications for the post of Music Teacher. Respondent E No.1 did not raise any objection at that stage that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment and she should be considered for promotion. Not only that, she in fact, applied for the post and took part in the selection process. After having taken part in the selection process and being found lower in merit to the appellant, she cannot at this stage be permitted to turn around and claim F that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment. [Para 11)(516-F-H] G H - Dr. G Sarna v. University of Lucknow & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 585 : [1977] 1 SCR 64; Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of J & K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486 : (1995) 1 SCR 908; Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576; Ramesh Chandra Shah and Ors. v. Anil Joshi and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 309 : [2013] 5 SCR 687; Madras Institute of Development Studies and Anr. · v. Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan and Ors. (2016) 1 SCC 454 - relied on. 512 D. SAROJAKUMARI v. R. HELEN THILAKOM & ORS. 513 Case Law Reference (1977) 1 SCR 64 relied on Paras [1995) 1 SCR 908 relied on Para6 (2010) 12 sec 576 relied on Para7 (2013) 5 SCR 687 relied on Para8 (2016) 1 sec 454 relied on Para9 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8345- 8346 of2009. A B From the final Judgment and Order dated 06.07.2005 passed by C the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. Nos.1621 of 2003 and 1735 of2003 respectively. Mathai M. Paikaday, Sr. Adv., Shishir Pinaki, San jay Jaih, Advs. for the Appellant. ' E. M. S. Anam, G. Prakash, Jishnu M. L., Ms. Priyanka Prakash, D Ms. Beena Prakash, Vijay Shankar V. L., Ranjith K. C. Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DEEPAK GUPTA, J. I. Respondent No.6, Management of E Church of South India, is running a number of schools in the State of Kerala. We are concerned with two schools, i.e., Samue!LMS High School, Parassala and the Light to the Blind School, Varkala. Respondent No.I was working as part-time Music Teacher in the Light to the Blind School, Varkala. 2. The Management of the Samuel LMS High School, Parassala, invited applications for filling up the post of Music Teacher on direct recruitment basis. The Appellant and Respondent No. I both applied for the said post. The appellant was appointed as Music Teacher on 12.07.1999 in Samuel LMS High School, Parassala. Though Respondent F No. I had applied for being considered fornppointmentas Music Teacher G in the Samuel LMS High School, but after she was not selected in the process of direct recruitment, she raised a plea that since the Management of both the schools are same, she was entitled to be promoted as Music Teacher on the basis.ofher seniority in the Light to the Blind School, Varkala. In this regard, ·she first filed a petition before· the District H 514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R. A Educational Officer who accepted her petition and held that the case of Respondent No.I was covered under Rule 43 of Kera la Education Rules (for short KER). The appellant filed an appeal which was rejected by the Deputy Director, Education. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed and the main ground raised by Respondent No.6 herein was that the two B Schools were separate units. It was contended that the Samuel LMS High Scliool was run for all children, whereas the Light to the Blind School, Varkala, was meant only for differently abled children. It was pointed out that Respondent No.6 had never maintained a common seniority list for these two schools and this was never challenged by Respondent No. I or any other member of the staff. The Director, Public C Instruction held that bo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.