VILASINI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. No. 8196 of 1990 is filed by petitioner, who is aggrieved by the orders passed by the educational authorities and the State declining to approve her appointment. 6th respondent in O. P. No. 81% of 1990 has filed O. P. No. 11740 of 1990 seeking implementation of Ext. P5 order, which declared that she is entitled to be appointed by virtue of Rule 51a of Chapter xiv-AK. E. R. O. P. No. 6519 of 1991 is filed by the Manager, 7th respondent in o. P. No. 81% of 1990 challenging the orders declining to approve appointment of petitioner in O. P. No. 8196 of 1990 made by him and declaring that the 6th respondent is not entitled to get appointment on the strength of Rule 51 A of chapter XIV-A. K. E. R. For convenient sake, I will refer the parties with reference to their array in O. P. No. 8196 of 1990. As a common question is raised in all these Original Petitions, I am disposing of these petitions by a combined judgment.

(2.) LEAVE vacancy of a Upper Primary School Assistant (Hindi) arose in the Karakode Upper Primary School . Pursuant to the advertisement given by 7th respondent, petitioner applied for the post and she was selected. Ext. P1 appointment order dated 14-8-1989 was issued by 7th respondent. It was to fill the leave vacancy for the period from 14-8-1989 to 17-10-1989. The appointment order was sent for approval. 5th respondent the Assistant Educational Officer passed an order dated 2-11-1989 declining the approval on the ground that 6th respondent had complained that she had got previous approved service as P. D. Hindi teacher in the school and that therefore she was rightful claimant under rule 51a of Chapter XIV A, K. E. R. 7th respondent Manager filed an appeal against the order of 5th respondent. In the meanwhile, 6th respondent filed a representation Ext. P3 before the Government stating that she is the rightful claimant under Rule 51 A of Chapter XIV A, K. E. R. as she had worked in the U. P. School, Karakode for the period from 3-11-1969 to 15-1-1970 in a leave' vacancy. In an Original Petition filed by 6th respondent, this court passed ext. P4 judgment, directing the Government to dispose of Ext. P3 representation. There was also a direction that if any appointment is made by the Manager, in the meantime, the controlling officer should not approve the same until the Government passes final orders in the matter. Pursuant to this, government passed Ext. P5 order, holding that 6th respondent is entitled to the benefit of Rule 51a of Chapter XIV A and therefore she is the rightful claimant to be appointed in the vacancy. 7th respondent Manager was directed to appoint 6th respondent. In the meanwhile, the teacher who took leave retired and a permanent vacancy arose and 7th respondent appointed the petitioner to fill that permanent vacancy. The Assistant Educational officer refused to approve the appointment by Ext. P6 order. O. P. No. 11740 of 1990 is filed by 6th respondent praying to implement Ext. P5 order, which is produced therein as Ext. P3 and o. P. No. 6519 of 1991 is filed by 7th respondent seeking to quash Ext. P5 order and praying for some consequential orders.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner contended that the 6th respondent was appointed in a permanent vacancy subsequent to her appointment in the school of 7th respondent. This leads us to the question whether an educational Agency in Tamilnadu would fall within the expression" under any Educational agency" in rule 51a. It has also to be stated that even accepting the interpretation suggested by learned counsel for petitioner, there is no material to hold that 6th respondent is appointed in a permanent vacancy under an Educational Agency in Tamilnadu. The necessary averment on this aspect is made in para 8 of the Original Petition. It is stated there that 6th respondent is a permanent teacher in an aided school under a private educational Agency in Tamilnadu and she is entitled-to benefits of protection of service under Chapter V of Tamilnadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation act (T. N. Act 29) of 1974 and therefore 6th respondent has no claim under Rule 51a of Chapter XIV A, K. E. R. 6th respondent in her counter affidavit has denied this averment. However, in Ground F, petitioner has averred that the Government has found that Smt. Sarasamma was working in the ABC Matriculation School at Kollamkode in tamilnadu and it is an undisputed fact. To this, 6th respondent has replied in her counter affidavit as follows:- "abc Matriculation school mentioned in the O. P. was permitted to be opened by Tamil Nadu Government only on 6-7-1989with certain condition. Before that, it was a private tuition Home. Hindi is not a subject that is taught in Tamil Nadu Schools. In Kerala as well as in Central Schools, hindi is taught after the IV th standard. To enable students who get admitted after the IV Std. in Kerala or in Central Schools, I used to give tuition in A. B. C. Nursery School occasionally. It was then a proprietory concern run by Sri. D. Titus. In Tamil Nadu, a school run by a single individual under normal circumstances is not recognised. The tuition centre where I was engaged and which was neither aided nor recognised under any enactment, was later converted into society. As per proceedings of Tamil Nadu government dated 7-9-1989 (proceedings No. 106706/e3/ 89 dated 7-9-1989) the school was allowed to function. Later it came to be known as A. B. C. Matriculation School . It is an unaided, where Hindi is not taught. I was relieved from the Nursery School immediately thereafter".