SHEEJA PAUL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been working as a Lower Primary School Assistant at Janakeeya Vidyalayam, an Aided School for the period from 2.9.1997 onwards. She is aggrieved by the denial of approval to her re- appointment w.e.f. 1.6.2011 in the very same School. The petitioner was retrenched from service in the staff fixation for the year 2009-2010, w.e.f 15.7.2010. However, a retirement vacancy arouse on 1.6.2011. The petitioner points out that instead of approving her re- appointment, she was included in the teachers package and was appointed as cluster co-ordinator of BRC w.e.f 14.6.2012. Thereafter she was called back to her parent School on 1.2.2013. Claiming that the petitioner was entitled to get approval to her re- appointment from 1.6.2011 onwards in the parent School, she had approached the Government. The Government as per Ext.P1 order directed that the Assistant Educational Officer shall rectify the irregularity and approve the appointment of the petitioner strictly in accordance with rules in force. The Government found that where there was a vacancy w.e.f 1.6.2011 in which the petitioner was entitled to be appointed, she was included in the teachers package and posted as BRC co- ordinator.

(2.) Since the AEO did not pass any orders based on Ext.P1 order the petitioner again approached the Government. The Government thereafter passed Ext.P4 order. After obtaining a report from the AEO, the Government found that there was a vacancy for re- appointment of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.6.2011. However, AEO reported that the Manager of the School did not furnish the proposal for her re-appointment and the relevant documents were furnished before the AEO only on 7.3.2013. Government found that there was no lapses on the part of the AEO. However the Government found that the petitioner has not worked for the period from 15.7.2010, till she joined as a cluster co-ordinator of BRC on 13.6.2012; therefore, the period from 15.7.2010- 13.6.2012 shall be regularized after obtaining application from the petitioner either for eligible leave or for Leave Without Allowance (LWA), in accordance with the Government orders dated 24.7.2000 and 29.1.2016. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order.

(3.) Along with the reply affidavit the petitioner has produced the extract of the attendance register which would show that petitioner has worked from 1.6.2011 onwards till her deployment as cluster co- ordinator in 2012. It is pointed out that even though the said records were furnished to the AEO as per Ext.P6 letter the same was not considered. According to the petitioner, the entire service from 1.6.2011 is liable to be treated as duty and she is entitled to all benefits.