NEENU BABY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is the following: THE petitioner commenced service as UPSA in Ebenezer High School, Veettoor, Muvattupuzha with effect from 2.6.2008. THE appointment of the petitioner as UPSA was approved by the District Educational Officer as per Ext.P1 order dated 31.3.2010. One H.S.A.(SS) was in excess during the previous year and he was accommodated against the H.S.A.(English) cadre. On 31.3.2010, one H.S.A.(SS) retired from service. Thus one post of H.S.A.(English) became vacant. THE petitioner claims that she is a Rule 43 claimant. THE Manager promoted the petitioner against the vacancy of H.S.A.(English) with effect from 1.6.2010, as per Ext.P3 order.

(2.) THE sixth respondent is working as H.S.A.(SS) in the School. THE sixth respondent was appointed for the period from 7.6.2001 to 31.5.2011 against a leave vacancy. She staked claim against the vacancy of H.S.A.(English). THE sixth respondent claimed the benefit of G.O.(MS)No.132/09/G.Edn. dated 17.6.2009. According to the petitioner, the sixth respondent is not qualified for the post of H.S.A.(English). THE petitioner also contends that the sixth respondent cannot claim the benefit of Rule 51-A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules as, on the date of occurrence of the vacancy of H.S.A.(English), the sixth respondent was not a retrenched teacher.