SADIQALI MADATHIL KUNNETH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the manner in which I propose to dispose of the Writ Petition, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to the fifth respondent. Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 4.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is the following: The petitioner is working as H.S.A.(Urdu) in Narokavu High School, of which, the fifth respondent is the Manager. The School is an aided school. When N.Abida, H.S.A.(Urdu) retired on superannuation with effect from 31.3.2009, the Manager appointed the petitioner as H.S.A.(Urdu) with effect from 1.6.2009, as per Ext.P1 order of appointment. The proposal for approval of the appointment of the petitioner was rejected by the District Educational Officer, as per Ext.P2 order dated 16.10.2009. The Manager submitted appeal to the Deputy Director of Education challenging Ext.P2. The Deputy Director of Education rejected the appeal as per Ext.P3 order dated 3.8.2010. Challenging Ext.P3 order, the Manager filed Ext.P5 revision dated 9.9.2010 before the Government. Ext.P5 revision is pending disposal.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as H.S.A.(Urdu) in a post sanctioned under group 'C' diversion. It is contended that as per the existing Government Orders, the post created on group 'C' diversion cannot be treated as part time post. The petitioner also relies on the Government Orders mentioned in paragraph 6 of the Writ Petition to contend that the benefit of group 'C' diversion can be extended to the newly appointed teachers also.