SHINE SUDHAKAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the manager of a U.P. School under whose management, a High School is also functioning in the same campus. Both the High school and the U.P. School had separate physical education teachers. However, when the physical education teacher in the High School retired, the D.E.O. in exercise of his authority under Rule 6B(1) of Chap. XXIII of the K.E.R. considered the working hours to be assigned to the physical education teacher and found that one physical education teacher can manage both the schools. Therefore on retirement of the physical education teacher in the High School, the physical education teacher in the U.P. School was shifted to the High School and the physical education teacher's post in the U.P. Section of petitioner's school was abolished. Petitioner filed revision before the Government and in between petitioner appointed another physical education teacher in the U.P. School and made an application for restoration of the same post. Even though there was interim order issued by this Court directing the Government to consider restoration, later vide Ext.P8 judgment, Government was given freedom to regularise the appointment only if post is sanctioned. According to the Appellants, Government without notice to the appellants held that temporary appointment of physical education teacher in the U.P. school, pending approval, made by the appellants is irregular. Appellants' challenge against Government orders before the learned single Judge was unsuccessful. After hearing both sides we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment because after abolition of physical education teacher post in the U.P. School by the D.E.O. in exercise of powers under Rule 6B(1) of Chap. XXIII, the appellants had no authority to make temporary appointment and apply for grant of the post. In fact, even though Manager is entitled to appoint a teacher pending sanction of the post, the same does not apply to a case where the statutory authority refixed the staff strength and abolished the existing post. In our view, the appellants had no authority to appoint a teacher temporarily to a post which was abolished by the statutory authority while fixing staff strength. The appointment so made is at the risk of the appellants as well as the teacher involved. We therefore do not find any merit in the appeal and same is accordingly dismissed.