M RAJALAZMY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as UPSA in A.U.P.School, Parappukkara for the period from 1.1.1997 to 26.3.1998, as per Ext.P6 order of appointment. The Assistant Educational Officer approved her appointment for the period from 1.1.1997 to 31.3.1997 only, in view of Rule 49 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. Rule 49 reads as follows:

(2.) The appointment of the petitioner as per Ext.P6 appointment order was in a leave vacancy. In the same leave vacancy, the petitioner was appointed for the period from 2.6.1997 to 26.3.1998, as per Ext.P1 order of appointment. That appointment was approved by the Assistant Educational Officer for the period from 2.6.1997 to 31.12.1997. Meanwhile, the petitioner applied for maternity leave for the period from 1.1.1998 to 26.3.1998. The maternity leave applied for by the petitioner was rejected by the Assistant Educational Officer. The petitioner challenged the order of the Assistant Educational Officer before the District Educational Officer, who passed Ext.P3 order dated 15.11.2003. The District Educational Officer confirmed the order of the Assistant Educational Officer. The ground on which the maternity leave was rejected was that the appointment of the petitioner was for a period of less than one year and as per Note 4 to Rule 100 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, such a person who was appointed as a provisional hand was not entitled to get maternity leave. Note 4 to Rule 100 reads as follows:

(3.) The petitioner was later appointed in another vacancy in the same School from 1.6.1998 onwards. Thereafter, she got employment in a Government School. The contention of the petitioner is that if maternity leave is granted and the service of the petitioner is regularized, she would get the benefit of her service for the continuous period.