VIJAYALAKSHMIKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this original petition is against the order passed by the 1st respondent invoking its jurisdiction under R.92 of Chap.14 A of the K. E. R. declining petitioner's claim for appointment to the post of Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in the vacancy which arose on 30-3-91 in the school of the 4th respondent on the ground of preferential claim under R.51A of Chap.14A K. E. R.

(2.) The petitioner was originally appointed as a Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in the school of the 4th respondent in a temporary vacancy for the period from 10-6-1980 to 11-8 1980. The appointment was duly approved by the 3rd respondent. She was again appointed in a leave vacancy from 5-9-1980 to 28-11-1980, which was also approved. Thereafter, when a vacancy arose in the same post between 10-1-1989 to 22-3-1989, nobody was appointed by the Manager. But in a subsequent temporary vacancy for the period from 3-7-1989 to 1-9-1989 the complaint of the petitioner is that overlooking her claim under R.51 A of Ch. XIVA of K. E. R., the 5th respondent was appointed. She contends that no notice was given to her by the Manager as contemplated by 'Note' 2 to R.51A. When she came to know about the appointment, she made representation on 7-7-1989 both to the Manager as well as to the A. E. O. with a request not to approve the appointment of the 5th respondent. When there was delay in passing order on her representations, she filed O. P. 6454/89, which was disposed of by Ext. P1 judgment dt. 14-8-1989 directing the A. E. O. to consider petitioner's claim under R.51A and pass orders thereon. Ext. P2 is the order passed by the A. E. O. on 19-8-1989, rejecting petitioner's claim. Two reasons were given therein to deny the petitioner's request. Firstly, it was found that the petitioner had given two letters relinquishing her claim under R.51A for further appointment in the school and secondly, she was over - aged.

(3.) Aggrieved by the stand taken by the A. E. O., the petitioner filed a revision before the Director of Public Instruction. Ext. P4 is the order passed thereon. The Director of Public Instruction took the view that the letters of relinquishment, alleged to have been given by the petitioner have no legal effect so long as the procedure directed by law under 'Note' 2 to R.51A had not been followed by the Manager. He therefore set aside the approval of appointment of the 5th respondent and directed the Manager to appoint R.51A claimant observing the procedure laid down under 'Note' 2 of R.51A.