ALEYAMMA ABRAHAM Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of the proposal for approval for appointment/promotion. The first Petitioner was initially appointed as UPSA with effect from 28.7.1983. A short term leave vacancy for 65 days arose from 28.10.1997 to 31.12.1997when one Smt. C.S. Swarnamma HAS (Social Studies) took leave. First Petitioner was promoted in the leave vacancy as a Rule 43 claimant and the second Petitioner was newly appointed in the resultant vacancy of UPSA from 28.10.1997. Exhibits P2 and P3 are the appointment orders. The 1st Petitioner was later promoted as HSA (Social Science) with effect from 6.6.2001 in a substantive vacancy which was duly approved also. The 2nd Petitioner is working as UPSA with effect from 1.6.2008. Their appointments have been duly approved as evident from Exhibits P6 and P7.

(2.) The respective claims of the Petitioners for approval of appointment/promotion in the leave vacancy was considered by the Government and the Government by Exhibit P8 order rejected it. The same is under attack in this Writ Petition.

(3.) The reason pointed out by the Government in Exhibit P8 is that the appointments of the Petitioners were irregular as teachers of the school were deployed to Government schools on protection in the previous academic year 2001-02 and therefore instead of recalling those protected teachers the Manager resorted to make appointment/promotion and this is against the rules and orders in force.