DIPINKRISHNA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher in P.V.S.High School, Eranhikkal under the management of the fifth respondent, in a leave vacancy of one Ashokan.C.K., for the period from 5.6.2006 to 31.3.2007. It is stated that the educational officer rejected the proposal for approval of the appointment. THE appeal filed by the Manager was dismissed as per Ext.P3 order dated 20.6.2008, passed by the Director of Public Instruction. Against Ext.P3 order, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 Revision before the Government. It is stated that Ext.P4 Revision is pending disposal.

(2.) THEREAFTER, Ashokan.C.K., Physical Education Teacher, retired from service on 31.3.2007. The petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher on 2.6.2008. The proposal for approval of this appointment was also rejected by the Educational Officer, as per Ext.P7 order dated 15.10.2008, on several grounds including the ground that a protected teacher was not appointed, the school of the fifth respondent being a newly opened school. Ext.P7 order was challenged in Ext.P8 appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, who passed Ext.P9 order dated 19.2.2009, confirming the order passed by the Educational Officer. The petitioner filed Ext.P10 Revision before the Government, which was rejected as per Ext.P11 order dated 7.11.2009. In Ext.P11 order, the Government took the view that the Manager should have appointed a protected teacher when a vacancy arose. It is also stated that at that time several protected teachers were available in the District. The further statement in Ext.P11 is that the petitioner was not a Rule 51A claimant and, therefore, he could not claim appointment in preference to a protected teacher.