SHEEJA M Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner states that she is presently deployed in the Government L.P.School, Thoovayoor. Her parent school is the S.K.V. U.P.S., Mundapally, an aided school under the management of the 5th respondent. She contends that she was appointed in a regular substantive vacancy of U.P.S.A. with effect from 2.6.2005 onwards as per Ext.P1 order. It was while continuing in service as U.P.S.A. on the strength of Ext.P1 order that she was retrenched with effect from 14.7.2007 on account of reduction in student strength. Later, when an additional division vacancy arose in S.K.V. U.P. School, the 5th respondent reappointed the petitioner as U.P.S.A. However, when the proposal for appointment was forwarded to the 4th respondent, the same was rejected on the ground that there is a ban on appointment. Though the said order was challenged before the 2nd respondent by the 5th respondent, the same stands rejected. The petitioner states that later the Government came out with G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010 as per which, the ban imposed by the Government on appointment to the additional division vacancies were lifted. On the basis of the said order, the appointment of the petitioner was approved with effect from 1.6.2011 onwards which fact is evident from Ext.P3. Being aggrieved by the denial of approval of the appointment of the petitioner for the period from 2.6.2008 to 31.5.2011, the petitioner is stated to have moved the Government by filing Ext.P4 revision petition. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Sri. V. Vijulal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the additional division vacancy having been sanctioned as per Exts.P6 to P8 and the petitioner being a Rule 51A claimant is entitled to the benefit of protection. It is submitted that persons similarly situated as that of the petitioner had approached this Court and various benches of this Court as per Exts.P9 to P11 judgments have directed the Educational authorities to approve the appointments of those persons and also to disburse the benefits due and payable. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the limited request of the petitioner is for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 revision petition in the light of Exts.P9 to P11 within a timeframe and with due notice.

(3.) I have heard Smt.Nisha Bose, learned Senior Government Pleader. In view of the limited nature of the relief sought for by the petitioner, notice to the 5th respondent is dispensed with.