VIGNESH SHARMA U Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is now working as a Full-time Sanskrit Teacher in AUP School, Movvar. He secured that appointment after a very long drawn out legal battle. Initially, he was appointed in a leave vacancy for the period from 3.9.1991 to 2.1.1992. That appointment was duly approved by the educational authority. Thereafter, the petitioner again worked in the same post during the periods from 1.6.1992 to 10.8.1992, 11.8.1992 to 31.8.1992 and 1.9.1992 to 5.7.1993. In view of his approved service, the petitioner became entitled for preference in future appointments by virtue of Rule 51 A of Chapter XIV A of KER. But ignoring the petitioner's claim, the manager appointed another teacher by name Smt. Santhakumari, for a short period from 7.6.1993. But that appointment was not approved by the AEO. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Government, for regular appointment in a permanent vacancy, which arose in the school due to the retirement of Sri. U.Ganapathy Bhat, on 1.6.1992. The manager also filed a revision petition seeking approval of appointment of Smt. Santhakumari with effect from 7.6.1993. Both the revision petitions were heard together by the first respondent and Ext.P1 order was passed upholding the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the vacancy which arose on 1.6.1992 and rejecting the contentions of the third respondent manager. The third respondent challenged Ext.P1 order by filing O.P. No. 15013 of 1995. That original petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The third respondent went in appeal by filing Writ Appeal No.2210 of 1998. That writ appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs.2,500/- to the petitioner. Even thereafter the manager did not comply with Ext.P1 order. The petitioner again approached this Court by filing C.C.C. No.668 of 2001. This Court by an interim order fixed the date for giving appointment to the petitioner under the supervision of the second respondent. Thereafter the petitioner was appointed on 1.8.2001. In view of that appointment by Ext.P2 order dated 7.8.2001, a Division Bench of this Court closed the contempt case leaving it open to the petitioner herein to move the AEO for approval of his appointment in accordance with the rules. Thereafter the petitioner's appointment was approved with effect from 1.8.2001. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed with effect from 1.6.1992 and he had to wait for nine long years only because of the recalcitrant attitude of the third respondent-manager. The petitioner would submit that it is clear from Ext.P1 order that the petitioner was entitled to notional benefits including seniority as if he was appointed as a Full-time Sanskrit Teacher from 1.6.1992 itself. Therefore the petitioner filed a representation dated 4.8.2001 before the second respondent. The second respondent forwarded the said representation to the first respondent. The first respondent, by Ext.P4 held that without an appointment order by the Manager appointing the petitioner the period the petitioner actually worked previously cannot be approved. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents. The first respondent puts the blame on the Manager. The third respondent manager takes the stand that he has complied with Ext.P1 and the judgments of this Court.

(3.) The only question to be decided in this case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to service benefits from 1.6.1992 namely the date of occurrence of the vacancy as per Ext.P1 order. The operative portion of Ext.P1 reads thus: