ANTONY DOMINIC, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.14937/2012. The said Writ Petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein, impleading the appellant as the 4th respondent. The controversy in the Writ Petition related to the appointment to the post of Administrative Head in the vocational higher secondary school, of which the 4th respondent herein is the Manager. According to the 1st respondent, both she and the appellant commenced service on 2.11.1991. It was contended that the 1st respondent commenced service as Vocational Teacher (Maintenance and Operation of Bio Medical Equipments), whereas the appellant commenced service as Non-vocational Teacher (English). According to the 1st respondent, she being senior, was entitled to be appointed as Administrative Head and that overlooking her seniority the appellant was appointed as Administrative Head.
2. The judgment under appeal shows that the only contention that was urged before the learned Single Judge and considered was as to whether the dispute of seniority among the appellant and the 1st respondent was covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1423/2012. Dealing with this contention, the learned Single Judge held that the dispute was covered by that judgment and that going by the principles laid down by the Division Bench, in a dispute of seniority between vocational teacher and non-vocational teacher, seniority has to be conceded to the vocational teacher. On that basis, the learned Single Judge accepted the case of the 1st respondent/petitioner and allowed the Writ Petition. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3.
4. Although the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is senior to the 1st respondent and relied on Ext.P5, Government order dated 19.1.2012, and also raised various other factual contentions to substantiate his claim that appellant is senior and that the very appointment of the 1st respondent as vocational teacher is illegal, in our view, since the only contention that was urged before the learned Single Judge and dealt with is the judgment under appeal is regarding the applicability of the principles laid down by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1423/2012 to the facts of this case. The appellant also has no case otherwise in her pleadings. Therefore, this Court, while hearing the appeal against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge should confine our examination to that issue that was debated and dealt with by the learned Single Judge.
5. Insofar as the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No. 1423/2012 is concerned, that judgment is Ext.P14. This judgment shows that the issue that was raised before the Division Bench was regarding the interpretation of the provisions contained in Ext.P5 dated 19.1.2012 referred to above and insofar as the seniority of the vocational and non-vocational teachers is concerned, this Court held that vocational teachers are entitled to seniority list and that non-vocational teacher like the appellant will gain seniority only after becoming vocational teacher. This judgment holds the field today and we do not see any reason to deviate from that principle.
6. So long as Ext.P14 judgment remains in force, as rightly found by the learned Single Judge, the contention raised by the 1st respondent should be accepted. In such circumstances, the judgment under appeal cannot be said to be illegal. As regards the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before us, those contentions are not seen raised when the Writ Petition was heard and therefore if at all, for non-consideration of those contentions, the judgment is vitiated, the remedy available to the appellant is to seek a review of the judgment under appeal.
7. However, learned counsel for the appellant contended that R.P.No.1125/2012 seeking review of the judgment in W.A.No.1423/2012 is pending. The pendency of the review petition by itself does not warrant departure from the principles laid down by the Division Bench in the judgment in W.A.No.1423/2012. However, considering the pendency of the said review petition, though we expressed our willingness to keep this appeal pending without any interim orders, the learned counsel for the appellant himself wanted disposal of the appeal on merits. It is therefore that we are constrained to pass this judgment.
In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS , JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge