Holding

Selection for appointment by promotion to HSST must be based solely on seniority and the qualifications prescribed in the Government Orders; any consideration of extraneous factors renders the appointment illegal.

Summary

The appellant, a High School Assistant (HSA) appointed in 1990, applied for promotion to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST) when a vacancy arose. Although she was senior and possessed the required second‑class M.A. and B.Ed. qualifications, the Selection Committee appointed a junior colleague, citing his proficiency in Kannada and other qualifications not prescribed in the Government Orders. The Supreme Court held that the selection was based on extraneous considerations and that the expression "subject to seniority and suitability" in the relevant G.O.s requires selection by seniority and the prescribed qualifications alone, without comparative assessment of suitability. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's orders, declared the appointment of the junior respondent illegal, and directed the authorities to appoint the appellant. The decision underscores that appointments by promotion from the General Education Subordinate Service must follow the criteria laid down in the Government Orders.

Issues considered

Whether the selection of the 5th respondent for the post of HSST ignored the criteria of seniority and suitability envisaged under G.O. (MS) No. 138/90 dated 27.06.1990.
Whether proficiency in Kannada can be a criterion for appointment by promotion where no such stipulation exists in the Government Order.
Whether the Staff Selection Committee was competent to make selection for appointment by promotion when its power is limited to direct recruitment.
Whether the expression "suitability" under G.O. dated 27.06.1990 means suitability in relation to qualification and experience or a comparative assessment of suitability.
Whether the Staff Selection Committee was justified in acting on the suggestions of the Parent‑Teacher Association contrary to the criteria in the Government Order.
Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the selection of the 5th respondent despite the appellant’s seniority as HSA.

Subjects

service lawpromotionsenioritysuitabilitygovernment orderselection committeeextraneous considerationsappointment by promotionhigher secondary school teacher

Judgment

A VALSALA KUMAR! DEVI M. -J-
v.
DIRECTOR, HIGH~R SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ORS.,.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)

Service Law-Selection-By promotion-Post ofHSST (Higher 'I:-
Secondary School Teacher)-Sought to be filled up by promotion of
c qualified HAS (High School Assistant)----G. Os prescribing qualifications
and mode ofselection-Both Appellant and 5th Respondent working
as HAS, applied-Selection of5th Respondent though Appellant was
·senior~hallenge against-Held: Selection was based on extraneous/
irrelevant considerations-It was improper on part of Selection
D Committee to take into account qualifications not prescribed in the
G. Os. and ignore Appellant who was fully qualified as well as senior
to 5th respondent.
Words and Phrases- 'Suitability', 'Eligible '-Meaning of-In the
E context ofselection/appointment in service jurisprudence-Discussed

In the Higher Secondary School in question, a post ofHSST (Higher
Secondary School Teacher) fell vacant. ~ppellant as well as the 5th
Respondent, both of whom were working as HAS (High School
Assistant) in the very same school at the relevant 'time, applied for
F
appointment by promotion to the said post. 5th Respandent was
appointed as HSST. AppeDant ftled writ petition contending thatthe 4th
respondent (Manager) appointed 5th Respondent overlooking the
seniority and eligibility of Appellant. High Court, however, upheld t~e
selection of 5th respondent. Hence the present appeal.
G
~"
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Since the appellant was appointed as HSA w.e.f.
13.07.1990 and the 5th respondent only from 20.6.1991, he is junior to
H 294
V ALSALA KUMARI DEVI M.v. DIRECTOR, HIGHER 295
SECONDARY EDUCATION
the appellant in the category ofHSA. The particulars furnished clearly A
show that the appellant possesses the requisite qualification for being
considered for the post ofHSST. Government Order dated 27.6.1990
prescribes the minimum qualification for the Higher Secondary School
Teachers as second class Master's Degree in the concerned subject
with B.Ed. The appellant having secured second class Master's degree B
in History and B.Ed. Degree in English and History was fully qualified
and eligible for appointment as HSST (History) in Humanities Group.
[Para 9.1] [303-H; 304-A, B, C]

1.2. The Government Order dated 13.5.1998 makes it clear that C
25% of vacancies in the post of HSST in the Government Higher
Secondary Schools and Aided Higher Secondary Schools will be
reserved for appointment from qualified High School Assistants and
Primary School Teachers. It also prescribes that the remaining 75%
vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment in the Aided Higher D
Secondary Schools will be done by the Management and the selection
of candidates for direct recruitment in Aided Higher Secondary Schools
will be done by a Staff Selection Committee. [Para 9.2] [304-C, D, E]

1.3. Government Order dated 27.6.1990 makes it clear that the
selection ofteachers will be subject to seniority and suitability and G.O. E
dated 13.5.1998 specifically prescribes that the teachers appointed from
General Education Subordinate Service will be treated as appointment
by promotion. There is no dispute that the appellant is senior to 5th
respondent. She is eligible and qualified for appointment by promotion
to HSST. It is not the case of the Management that she is unsuitable F
for promotion. [Para 10] (304-E, F, G]

1.4. The expression "subject to seniority and suitability" occurring
in G.O. dated 27.6.1990 does not mean the comparative assessment of
suitability and it only means the suitability for the particular post and G
!he suitability is related to the prescribed qualification and requisite
experience. In view of the distinction between the appointment by
promotion from General Education Subordinate Service and an
appointment to the 75% vacancies ear-marked for direct recruitment,
the finding arrived at by the Director, Higher Secondary School that H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

· A seniority is not the criterion for 'appointment by promotion to HSST' is
erroneous and is not in terms of the Government Orders. Though in
the order, it is stated that the 5th respondent is more suitable than the
appellant, it has not been shown or indicated the reasons or grounds
for arriving at such decision. [Para 11] (304-G, H; 305-A, BJ
B
1.5. The Director has mechanically accepted the decision of the
Selection Committee that the 5th respondent is more suitab~e than the
appellant with out reference to selection for appointment by promotion
to HSST against 25% quota ear-marked for qualified High School
C Assistants. The Director committed an illegality in upholding the
selection of the 5th respondent for appointment to the post of HSST.
Further the 5th respondent has been preferred to the appellant for the
reason that his main subject in B.A. is History which is totally irrelevant
for promotion to HSST from among HSAs. In G.O. dated 27.6.1990 the
D qualification prescribed is a second class Master's Degree in the
concerned subject with B.Ed. The appellant and the 5th respondent have
obtained M.A. Degree from Mysore University and the 5th respondent
tookB.Ed. with Social Studies. The other reason given by the Selection
Committee for preferring 5th respondent is that he has proficiency in
E English, Kannada and Malayalam whereas the appellant has proficiency
in English and Malayalam. Once the requirement of the prescribed
qualification is satisfied, the selection must be made on the basis of the
seniority and suitability and there is no scope for making comparison
of qualifications or comparative assessment of suitability. The
F expression 'suitability' means that a person to be appointed shall be
legally eligible and 'eligible' should be taken to mean 'fit to be chosen'.
(Para 11) (305-C,D,E,F,G]
2. ltwas improper on the part of the Selection Committee to make
selection taking into account the qualifications which are not prescribed
G in the G.Os and by givingweightage to such qualifications. The Selection
)- .
Committee has also taken note of the suggestion of the Parents
Teachers Association that persons having proficiency in Kannada should
be preferred when there is no such condition in the Government Order.
Ignoring the appellant who has been working as HSA in the very same
H school and selecting the 5th respondent by giving weightage for
VALSALA KUMAR! DEVI M. v. DIRECTOR, HIGHER 297
SECONDARY EDUCATION [SATHASIVAM, J.]
proficiency in Kannada which is not a condition prescribed in the relevant A
Govt orders by the Selection Committee can not be sustained. It is.
based on extraneous/irrelevant considerations.
[Para 12) [305-H; 306-A, B, CJ ·
3. The High Court on the mis-construction of two G.Os. dated ·.
27.06.1990 and 13.05.1998 prescribing qualifications and mode of B
selection, committed an error in upholding the selection of 5th
respondent when the appellant was fully qualified as well as senior to
5th respondent as HSA. [Para 13) [306-C, DI
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4480 of C
2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.7.2004 of the High Court
of Kerala at Emakulam in W.A. No. 1265of2004.
Romy Chacko for the Appellant.
D
A. Raghunath, G. Prakash, Beena Prakash, P.K. Jayakrishnan, M.P.
Vinod, Dileep Pillai and Ajay K. Jain for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, J. (1) Leave granted. E
(2) Valsala Kumari Devi M., High School Assistant, B.A.R.
High School, Bovikanan, Muliyar Post, Kasargode District, Kerala,
who lost her case before the High Court of Kerala has filed the above
appeal. F
(3) The brief facts, in nutshell, are as follows:
According to the appellant, she was originally working as High
School Assistant (hereinafter referred to as 'HSA') (Social Studies) in the
B.A.R. Higher Secondary School, Bovikanan. She was appointed as HSA G
(Social Studies) with effect from 13 .07 .1990 which was duly approved
by the Manager, B.A.R. High School, Bovikanan (respondent No.4
herein). Respondent No.5 herein, namely, M.K. Aravindakshan Nambiar,
entered into service as HSA (Social Studies) (Kannada Medium) with
effect from 20.06.1991. He is junior to the appellant in the category of H
298 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A HSA.
The appellant passed M.A. (History) in second class from the
Univ_ersity of ~ysore. M.A. (History) degree of the Mysore University
has been recognized as equivalent to the M.A. (History) degree of
B University of Calicut. A certificate to that effect has also been issued by
the Registrar, University of Calicut certifying that M.A. (History) Degree
of the Mysore University is recognized as equivalent to M.A. (History)
Degree of the University of Calicut. She has been awarded B.A. degree
by the University of Calicut having been duly certified to have passed in
C Economics main and Political Science, Indian History as subsidiaries in
the year 1980. She has also been awarded the degree of Bachelor of
Education (B.Ed.) in English and History subjects by the Kamataka
University in recognition of the fulfillment o~ the requirement:S for the said
degree and according to her, she passed the examination in April, 1981
D in First Class. B.Ed. degree of the University of Kamataka has been
recognized as equivalent to the B.Ed. degree of the University of Calicut
and a certificate to that effect has been issued to th~ appellant by the
Registrar of the University of Calicut. She has also passed the Master of
Arts (English) degree examination held in December, 2002 from the
E Annamalai University and she was placed in Second Class. She has also
passed the State Eligibility Test (SET) iri History subject in June, 2000
and the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations has certified that the
appellant has passed the SET prescribed as one of the qualifications for
appointment as Higher Secondary School Teacher, in short HSST.
F (4) The Government issued Notification prescribing the method of
appointment for the post of Higher Secondary School Teachers. The
minimum qualification prescribed in the Government Order for HSSTs is
Second Class Master's Degree in the concerned subject, with B.Ed., for
the time being till Rules are framed for regular appointment. The selection
G will be subject to seniority and suitability. The appellant having secured
second class Master's degree in History and B.Ed. degree in English and >---
History is eligible and qualified for appointment as HSST (History) in
Humanities Group-History, Geography, Economics, Hindi/Malayalam as
per the G.O. dated 27.06.1990.
H
j
VALSALA KUMAR! DEVI M. v. DIRECTOR, HIGHER 299
SECONDARY EDUCATION [SATHASIVAM, J.]
(5) A vacancy of HSST (History) arose in the B.A.R. Higher A
Secondary School, Bovikanan during the academic year 2000-01. The
appellant and the 5th respondent applied for appointment by promotion
to the above said post. As per G.O. dated 13.05.1998, 25% of vacancies
in the post ofHSST in the Government Higher Secondary Schools and
Aided Higher Secondary Schools will be reserved for appointment from B
qualified High School Assistants and Primary School Teachers. It provides
that the teachers appointed from General Education Subordinate Service
will be treated as appointment by promotion and they will be full-time
teachers irrespective of the periods to be taught. However, the remaining
75% vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment in the Aided Higher C
Secondary Schools will be done by the Management by a Staff Selection
Committee. According to the appellant, in the case of appointment by
promotion of the teachers from the General Education Subordinate
Service as HSST, the Staff Selection Committee does not have any role
and the same shall be made based on seniority of HSAs who possess D
the prescribed qualification for appointment as HSST.
(6) It is the grievance of the appellant that the 4th respondent-the •
Manager, overlooking the seniority and eligibility ofthe appellant, appointed
5th respondent as HSST (Hwnanities). Challenging the same, the appellant E
filed O.P. No. 22902 of2000 before the High Court ofKerala which
was disposed of by order dated 10.8.2000 directing the Director, Higher
Secondary Education, Thiruvanthapuram, Kerala (respondent No. I
herein), to consider and pass order on the representation made by the
appellant within a period of two months. Pursuant to the said direction, F
she was called upon to appear for an interview fixed for 30.03.2001. The
appellant appeared for the interview and produced all the original
certificates to prove her qualifications and eligibility. However, she was
informed by letter dated 05.04.2001 of the Manager, B.A.R. High School,
Bovikanan (respondent No.4) that she was not selected for the post of G
HSST (History). Aggrieved by her non-selection for promotion as HSST,
the appellant filed O.P. No. 13710 of2001 which was disposed of by
<mier dated 26.02.2003 directing the Director, B.A.R. High School,
Bovikanan, to consider the grievance of the ·appellant after affording her
an opportunity of being heard. Pursuant to the said direction, the appellant H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS, [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A submitted a fresh representation and finally the earlier order was once -~-

again reiterated upholding the appointment of the 5th respondent. The said
order was challenged by the appellant by filing W.P. (C) No. 21069 of
2003. The said writ petition was finally heard along with W.P. (C) No.
15674 of 2004 filed by the 5th respondent seeking for approval of his
B appointment and payment of salary. The above said writ petitions were
jointly heard and W.P. (C) No. 21069 of 2003 was dismissed by judgment
dated 22.6.2004 and Writ Petition (C) No. 15674of2004 ·was disposed
of by directing the concerned respondents to approve the appointment '< -
of 5th respondent and to disburse his salary within two months from the
c date of production of a copy of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the
above judgment, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Division
Bench of the High Court ofKerala in W.A. No. 1265 of2004 on various
grounds. By the impugned order dated 12.07.2004, the Division Bench
after finding that the selection shall be made based on seniority and
D suitability upheld the decision of the Selection Committee selecting the 5th
respondent confirmed the order of the learned single Judge and dismissed
the writ appeal filed by the appellant. Questioning these orders, the present
appeal has been preferred before this Court.
(7) We heard Mr. Romy Chacko, learned counsel, appearing for
E
the appellant and Mr. A. Raghunath, Mr. G. Prakash and Mr. M.P. Vinod,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(8) The following questi<?ns arise for consideration in this appeal:
(i) Whether the selection of 5th respondent for the post of Higher
F
Secondary School Teacher was made ignoring the criteria of
seniority and suitability envisaged under G.O. (MS) No. 138/90/
G.Edn. dated 27.06.1990?
(ii) Whether proficiency in Kannada a criteria for appointment by
G promotion for the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher in the ~
absence of any such stipulation in the Government Order dated
27.6.1990 more so when the medium of instruction in Higher
Secondary Schools is English?
(iii) Whether the Staff Selection Committee was competent to
H
VALSALA KUMARI DEVI M. v. DIRECTOR, HIGHER 301
SECONDARY EDUCATION [SATHASIVAM, J.]
make selection for appointment by promotion to General A
Education Subordinate Service when the power conferred on
Staff Selection Committee is restricted to selection by direct
recruitment alone?
(iv) Whether the expression "suitability" envisaged under G. 0. B
dated 27.06.1990 means suitability in relation to qualification
and requisite experience or comparative assessment of
suitability?
(v) Whether the Staff Selection Committee was justified in acting
on the dictates of the Parent Teacher Association of the School C
rather than the criteria provided under the G.O. dated
27.6.1990?
(vi) Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the selection
of 5th respondent in view ofthe admitted fact that the appellant
was senior to him as High School Assistant? D
In view of the fact that all the issues referred to above are interconnected,
they are being considered and disposed of by the following judgment:
(8) The subject relates to the appointment/selection for the post of
Higher Secondary School Teacher in History. Before considering the merits E
of the claim made by the appellant as well as by the 5th respondent, it is
desirable to refer to the relevant Government Orders issued by the
Government of Kerala. In G.O. (MS) No. 138/90/G.Edn. dated
27 .06.1990, the General Education (HSE) Department issued a
Notification prescribing certain conditions for appointment of teachers for F
Plus Two Higher Secondary Course. The relevant clauses of the
Government Order are as follows:
"l .................................................................... .
2................................................................. G

3.................................................................. .
4. The issues relating to the implementation of the Plus Two Higher
Secondary Course were examined in detail and discussions were H
---~

302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A held with representatives of all concerned. After careful
consideration of all aspects of the matter Government have decided
to introduce the Plus Two Course in selected schools in 1990-91.
Government are pleased to issue the following further instructions
in the matter:-
B
(i) ........................................................ .

(ii) ....................................................... .
"') ••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••...•.••••••••••••.•••••••••
(111 '

c (iv) ............................................. '. ....... ..
(v) The medium of instruction will be English.
(vi) ........................................................... .
D (vii) ........................................................... ..
(viii) ........................................................... .
(ix) .......................................................... ..
(x) ........................................................... .
E
(xi) ........................................................... .
(xii) ........................................................ ..
Teachers:- The minimum qualifications for the higher secondary
F schools teachers will be a second class Master's Degree in the
concerned subject, with B.Ed. for the time being till Rules are
framed for regular appointment. The teachers will be initially
appointed on the basis of these qualifications. The selection will
be subject to seniority and suitability. If sufficient number of qualified
G hands are not available for appointment as teachers, candidates
may be recruited through the Employment Exchange.
5 ................................... ..
6 ................................... ..
H
VALSALA KUMAR! DEVI M. v. DIRECTOR, HIGHER 303
SECONDARY EDUCATION [SATHASIVAM, J.]
7.................................... A
8 ........................................."
The relevant clauses of G.O.(Ms) No. 162/98/G.Edn. dated
13.5.1998 issued by the General Education (I) Department read as under:
B
"I ............................... .
2. The posts of Higher Secondary School teachers in Government
Higher Secondary Schools and Aided Higher Secondary Schools
-Y
will be filled up as follows:
(i) 25% vacancies will be reserved for appointment from qualified
c
High School Assistants and Primary -School Teachers.
(ii) The remaining 75% of posts in Government Schools wiU be
filled ~p _by direct recruitment through the Publ~c Service
.
Comm1ss1on............................................. .................. D
(iii) Appointments to the 75% vacancies earµiarked for direct
recruitment in the Aided Higher Secondary Schools will be done
by the management. If qualified teachers are not available for
appointment as mentioned in item (i) above, the management will E
fill up such vacancies also by direct recruitment. Selection of
candidates for direct recruitment in Aided Higher Secondary
Schools will be done by a Staff Selection Committee consisting of
the Manager or his representative, the Principal of the School and
a Government nominee from the panel of officers consisting of F
Deputy Director, Education, D.E.O. of the area and DIET Principal
of the District. The management can select a nominee from among
the above officers. The above officers are permitted to attend the
Staff Selection Committee meeting without further sanction.
3......................................................... " G

(9 .1.) In view of the above Government Orders, let us consider the
claim of the appellant, the 5th respondent as well as the dedsion taken
by the Selection Committee and the orders passed by the High Court.
As stated earlier, since the appellant was appointed as HSA w.e.f. H
~t
304 SUPREME COURT RJ;:PORTS [2007] I 0 S.C.R.

A 13.07.1990 and the 5th respondent only from 20.6.1991, he is junior to
the appellant in the category ofHSA. The particulars furnished clearly ·~-
show that the appellant possesses the requisite qualification· for being
considered for the post of HSST. G .0. dated 27 .6.1990 prescribes the
minimum qualification for the Higher Secondary·School.Teachers as
B second class Master's Degree in the concerned subject with B.Ed. We
have already extracted relevant clauses from the G.0. which make it clear
that medium of instruction will be English. As rightly pointed out by learned
counsel appearing for the appellant, the appellant having s~ured second
class Master's degree in History and B.Ed. Degree in English and History ~ -
C is fully qualified and eligible for appointment as HSST (History) in
Humanities Group.
(9.2.) The Government Order dated 13.5.1998 makes it clear that
25% of vacancies in the post of, HSST in the Government Higher
Secondary Schools and Aided Higher Secondary ·Schools will be
D
reserved for appointment from qualified High School Assistants and
Primary School Teacherli. It also prescribes that the remaining 75%
vacancies eannru:ked for direct recruitment in the Aided Higher Secondary
Schools will be done by the Management and the selection of candidates
E for direct recruitment in Aided Higher Secondary Schools will be done
by a Staff Selection Committee.
(10) Government Order dated 27 .6. J990 makes it clear that the
selection of teachers will be subject to seniority and suitability and G.O.
dated 13 .5 .1998 specifically prescribes that the teachers appointed from
F General Education Subordinate Service will·be treated as appointment
by promotion. As stated earlier, the selection will be subject to seniority
and suitability and there is no dispute that the appellant is senior to 5th
respondent. She is eligible and qualified for appointment by promotion to
HSST. It is not the case of the Management that she is unsuitable for
G promotion.
( 11) The expression "subject to seniority ~d suitability" occurring
in G.O. dated 27.6.1990 does not mean the comparative assessment of
suitability and it only means the suitability for the particular post and the
H suitability is related to the prescribed qualification and requisite experience.
VALSALA KUMAR! DEVI M. v. DIRECTOR, HIGHER 305
SECONDARY EDUCATION [SATHASIVAM, J.]
In view of the distinction between the appointment by promotion from A
-~- General Education Subordinate Service and an appointment to the 75%
vacancies ear-marked for direct recruitment, we are of the view that the
finding arrived at by the Director, Higher Secondary School,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala that seniority is not the criterion for
'appointment by promotion to HSST' is erroneous and is not in terms of B
the Government Orders referred to above. Though in the order, it is stated
that the 5th respondent is more suitable than the appellant, as rightly pointed
out by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it has not been shown
- -Y or indicated the reasons or grounds for arriving such decision that the 5th
respondent was found more suitable than the appellant for the post. We C
are also in agreement with the contention that the Director has mechanically
accepted the decision of the Selection Committee that tl1e 5th respondent
is more suitable than the appellant without reference to selection for
appointment by promotion to HSST against 25% quota ear-marked for
qualified High School Assistants. We are of the view that the Director D
has committed an illegality in upholding the selection of the 5th respondent
for appointment to the post of HSST. Further the 5th respondent has been I

preferred to the appellant for the reason that his main subject in B.A. is
History which is totally irrelevant for promotion to HSST from among
HSAs. In G.O. dated 27 .6.1990 the qualification prescribed is a second E
class Master's Degree in the concerned subject with B.Ed. It is relevant
to point out that the appellant and the 5th respondent have obtained M.A.
Degree from Mysore University and the 5th respondent took B.Ed. witl1
Social Studies. The other reason given by the Selection Committee for
preferring 5th respondent is that he has proficiency in English, Kannada F
and Malayalam whereas the appellant has proficiency in English and
Malayalam. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, once the requirement of the prescribed qualification is satisfied,
the selection must be made on the basis of the seniority and suitability
and there is no scope for making comparison of qualifications or G
comparative assessment of suitability. The expression 'suitability' means
that a person to be appointed shall be legally eligible and 'eligible' should
be taken to mean 'fit to be chosen'.
(12) In such circumstances, we are of the view that it was improper H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.
--*
),

A on the part of the Selection Committee to make selection taking into
account the qualifications which are not prescribed in the G.Os. and by
giving weightage to such qualifications. The Selection Committee has also
taken note of the suggestion of the Parents Teachers Association that
persons having proficiency in Kannada should be preferred when there
B is no such condition in the Government Order. In other words, preference
is to be given for proficiency in Kannada which is not a requisite
qualification. In our view, ignoring the appellant who has been working
as HSA in the very same school and selecting the 5th respondent by giving
weightage for proficiency in Kannada which is not a condition prescribed
C in the relevant Govt. orders by the Selection Committee can not be
sustained. It is based on extraneous/irrelevant considerations.
(13) In our view, the learned single Judge as well as the Division
Bench of the High Court on the mis-construction of two G.Os. dated
D 27.06.1990 and 13.05.1998 prescribing qualifications and mode of
selection, committed an error in upholding the selection of 5th respondent
when the appellant being fully qualified as well as senior to 5th respondent
asHSA.
(14) Under these circtimstances, we allow the appeal and set aside
E the order dated 22.6.2004 passed by the learned single Judge of the High
Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 21069/2003 and 15674 of2004 as well as the
order dated 12.7.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
in W.A. No. 1265 of2004 confirming the selection of the 5th respondent
as HSST. As a result of the above condusion, we direct the authorities
F to issue appropriate order in favour of the appellant within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. No order as to costs.
B.B.B. Appeal all~~ed.