STATE OF KERALA Vs. FELICIA MARIA JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the State of Kerala and its officers challenging the direction issued by a Learned Single Judge of this Court, directing the approval of the appointment of one Felicia Maria Joseph as an Upper Primary School Assistant (U.P.S.A), in the St.Gregory's U.P School, Kuzhuppilly, with effect from 1-6-2016.

(2.) Felicia Maria Joseph, the 1st respondent in this appeal was initially appointed as U.P.S.A on 03-06-2013 in the leave vacancy of one Jiby Varghese. That appointment was to continue till 30-09-2017. This spell of appointment in the leave vacancy was duly approved. In the meanwhile, consequent to retirement of one Lissy P.C, the 1st respondent was appointed as U.P.S.A, on a permanent basis, with effect from 01-06- 2016. This appointment was not approved and was rejected by the Assistant Educational Officer (AEO) through Ext.P3 order dated 31-10- 2016, on the ground that there were no government orders for approval of the appointment. By an order dated 24-11-2016 an appeal to the District Educational Officer (DEO) was rejected on the ground that the staff fixation for the years 2016-17 had not been completed. An appeal was preferred to the Director of Public Instructions (DPI) against the order of DEO dated 24-11-2016. When the appeal was pending a fresh proposal was given to the AEO since the staff fixation for 2016-17 had been completed by that time. This proposal was rejected by Ext.P5 for the same reason as in Ext.P3. An appeal was preferred to the DEO who, by Ext.P6 order, found that the action of the AEO in rejecting the approval was against the instructions of the Director of Public Instructions and further directed that the question of approval of the 1st respondent be reconsidered by the AEO and if there is no other objection to the approval, the same was directed to be granted.

(3.) Even after Ext.P6 order the AEO did not take any action. The then AEO approached the Director of Public Instructions through a representation to recall the observations made against his conduct in Ext.P6. The husband of the 1st respondent also approached the DPI with a representation regarding the approval of the appointment 1st respondent. Through Ext.P7 order, the DPI again directed the AEO to reconsider the matter. Whereupon, through Ext.P8 order dated 18-05-2019 the approval of appointment of the 1st respondent was rejected on the ground that she did not have K-TET qualification. This was ignoring the exemption that was available to 31-03-2019 for acquiring the K-TET qualification through Ext.P9 order dated 15-11-2019 of the Government. By that order the last date for acquisition of K-TET qualification in respect of those appointed till 31-03-2019 was extended till the commencement of the academic year 2020-2021 i.e. till 01-06-2020. An appeal against Ext.P8 order before the DEO was rejected on the ground that the 1st respondent has to approach the DPI. Through Ext.P13 order dated 17-12-2019 the DPI remanded the matter to the AEO for fresh consideration in accordance with the terms of the Government order dated 15-11-2019. The AEO thereafter passed Ext.P14 order dated 05-02-2020 rejecting the approval of appointment of the 1st respondent for totally new reasons. The principal reason now indicated was that there were appointments made earlier by the Manager which was against the provisions contained in the Rules and instructions issued by the Government from time to time and hence there was no post to which the 1st respondent could have been appointed. Impugning Ext.P.14 order, the 1st respondent approached this court through W.P (C) No.8269/2020.