Antony Dominic, J. 1. Appellant filed W.P(C).9301/13 challenging Ext.P5, where, the second respondent held her appointment as Ayah in the Government Lower Primary School, Puliyoorkonam as irregular and cancelled it. Learned single Judge having dismissed the writ petition, this appeal is filed.
2. We heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.
3. Case of the appellant was that by Ext.P6 resolution passed by the Parents Teachers Association and Mother Parent Teachers Association, it was decided to appoint her as Ayah in the school in question. It was also stated that Ext.P6 has been signed by the Headmaster of the school. According to her, it was on the strength of Ext.P6 that she was appointed by WA.1596/14 2 Ext.P1 order dated 1.6.2012 and that therefore, a valid appointment could not have been terminated in the manner done in Ext.P5.
4. However, we notice that in Ext.R5(a) proceedings of the School Management Committee, a specific allegation was raised that Ext.P1 is a fraudulent document. It is also seen that the 4th respondent President of the PTA at the time when Ext.P6 resolution was allegedly passed, was none other than the husband of the appellant and that the subsequent President, who is now in office, has also taken the definite stand that Ext.P1 is a fraudulent document. The Headmaster also has taken the same stand.
5. In so far as the contention of the appellant that since Exts.P1 and P6 carries the signature of the Headmaster and therefore, it is not open to him to contend that the documents are fraudulent is concerned, all that we need to state is that even on a cursory look at the signatures contained in Exts.P1 and P6, it is clear that these two signatures are substantially at variance from one another. These WA.1596/14 3 particulars therefore show that there is substance in what is contended. It was therefore that the learned single Judge declined to interfere with Ext.P5. We do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the judgment under appeal.
Writ appeal fails. It is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
kkb.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.