BHASKAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the Manager of M.G.L.P. School, M. Puthur, Govindapuram P.O., Palakkad District. By Exts.Pl and P2, the petitioner appointed the 3rd respondent as LPSA for two spells of period during the year 1994-1995. As she was a thrown out teacher, she was eligible for preferential claim under Rule 51A of Chap. XIVA K.E.R. While so, in 1998, the 3rd respondent was appointed in a regular vacancy in C.V.M. High School, Vandazhy, Palakkad District. Ext.P3 is the order of appointment. From that school, she was retrenched in the year 2003.

(2.) Subsequently, w.e.f. 1.4.2006, a vacancy of LPSA arose in the petitioner's school. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent claimed appointment based on the preferential right under Rule 51A Chap. XIVA K.E.R. That claim was not recognized by the Manager and the 4th respondent was appointed in the vacancy. 3rd respondent complained to the 2nd respondent, which was rejected by Ext.P4 order. Thereupon, though she challenged Ext.P4 before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 14069/06 and that Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn by Ext.P5 Judgment. Thereafter, she moved the Government by filing a revision. The revision was disposed of by the Government by Ext.P6 order, the relevant portion of which reads as under:

(3.) Two contentions are raised by the petitioner. First one is that, by the appointment that the 3rd respondent secured by Ext.P3 order, she has ceased to be eligible for the preferential right under Rule 51A Chap. XIVA K.E.R. Learned Counsel, in support of this contention relied on the judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. Unnikrishnan Nair,1993 2 KerLT 688, the judgment in K. Sudhakala v. State of Kerala and Ors. O.P. No. 22328/98 and Vasantha A.K. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2009 1 KerLT 1008. It was also argued that invocation of the power under Chap. 1 Rule 3 is illegal. On the other hand, counsel for the 3rd respondent placed considerable reliance on the judgment in Vasantha 's case (supra). According to him, what is relevant to be examined is whether the candidate in question is unemployed at the time when the subsequent vacancy arose irrespective of whether the candidate was appointed or retrenched in the interregnum. It is also his case that, on facts, she was able to satisfy the Government that she had become overaged and that there was no chance for future employment in the school in which she was appointed by Ext.P3 order. It is stated that in the aforesaid factual situation, Government invoked its power under Chap. IR.3 and exempted the 3rd respondent from the operation of the latter part of Rule 51A. It is on this basis, the 3rd respondent wants to sustain this order.