Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed on 09.06.2010 as UPSA in a regular vacancy in a school under the management of the 5th respondent. Later, she got her appointment approved. During the academic year 2012-2013, to be precise on 31.05.2012, the Headmistress of the school retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Thus, with effect from 01.06.2012, the post of Headmistress fell vacant.
3. The 5th respondent Manager promoted the senior most HSA in the school, namely Mrs. Sissy Koshy as the Headmistress; the said promotion was in course of time approved by the authorities through Exts.P3 and P4 orders. In the resultant vacancy that arose i.e., HSA (English), another High School Assistant in Natural Science, namely Smt. Mini Philip, applied for category change, which, in fact, was accorded on 13.08.2012 through Ext.P5.
4. The petitioner claimed promotion in the resultant vacancy i.e., HSA (Natural Science). On her application, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P6 proceedings directing the 5th respondent to promote the petitioner as HSA (Natural Science).
5. Aggrieved by the inaction of the 5th respondent in giving effect to Ext.P6 proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent has fairly submitted that the Manager does not have any objection to implement Ext.P6. He has further submitted that until recently since there was no clear sanction in that regard, the delay, if any, occurred.
7. As a subsequent development, the additional 6th respondent came herself on record raising an objection against the implementation of Ext.P6 proceedings. The contention of the learned counsel for the additional 6th respondent is that presently she is the junior most HSA (Physical Science). He submits that there is every possibility that in near future there may be a division fall resulting in declaration of one post as excess in the staff fixation order likely to be passed in future. In that event, she being the junior most, the additional 6th respondent may be reverted. The learned counsel has further submitted that ventilating her grievance, the additional 6th respondent has already filed a revision before the first respondent, the Government. According to him, any adjudication of the present writ petition, especially issuing a direction to the 5th respondent to implement Ext.P6 order, would have an adverse impact on the outcome of the revision, which is yet to be decided by the Government.
8. I am afraid, the contention of the learned counsel for the 6th respondent cannot be countenanced for more than one reason. At any rate, the determination of an issue is to be based on the statutory as well as the factual positions obtaining as on today. Indeterminate future events and apprehended consequences which may never materialise cannot deprive a person who is otherwise entitled to a particular benefit in presenti. It is, however, made clear that if any revision is pending on behalf of the additional 6th respondent, the Government may decide that independently in accordance with law.
9. Even regarding the entitlement of a particular teacher to be promoted is to be determined with reference to the date of vacancy. The said proposition has already been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smitha Johny v. Josny Varghese and others (2010 (13) SCC 414).
Accordingly, this Court allows the writ petition with a direction to the 5th respondent to implement Ext.P6 proceedings of the 4th respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv