JAFFAR CHUNGATH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a UPSA in the school managed by the 6th respondent in a leave vacancy for the period from 1.12.2003 to 13.4.2004. THE said appointment was refused to be approved by the 5th respondent-AEO. THE manager and the petitioner took up the matter in appeal and in revision. Ultimately, as per the direction of this Court in W.P.(C).No. 23080/2007, the revision petitions filed by the petitioner and the manager in respect of the rejection of the approval of the petitioner's appointment were considered and rejected by Ext.P9 order of the Government. THE petitioner is challenging the same in this writ petition.

(2.) IN Ext.P9 order the reason stated for non-approval is that the manager has not appointed a protected teacher in the school, which is a requirement for filling up vacancies of teachers in the aided schools by the managers of the schools, as per the Government orders issued in that regard. The petitioner's contention is that the concerned educational officer has not made available to the manager the details of any protected teacher to be appointed and, therefore, the manager cannot be faulted for not appointing a protected teacher and consequently, approval of the appointment of the petitioner cannot be denied on the ground that no protected teacher has been appointed in the school.

(3.) IN Ext.P9 Government order, the Government has specifically stated that once a protected teacher returns to the parent school when a vacancy occurs in the parent school, another protected teacher has to be accommodated in the place of that protected teacher. The petitioner could not satisfy me that the same is not a requirement. Therefore, the fact that in Ext.P4 the manager has stated that two protected teachers were appointed after starting of the school does not come to the assistance of the petitioner in discrediting Ext.P9 order insofar as in Ext.P4 itself the manager admits that the protected teachers so appointed have returned to their parent school. The question as to whether there was a protected teacher or not and whether the manager appointed a protected teacher are questions of fact. The petitioner's contention is that it is for the AEO to make available the details of protected teachers. I am unable to countenance that contention. The AEO may not be aware of the existence of the vacancy when a vacancy occurs. It is for the manager to ascertain the details of any protected teacher available and fulfil the condition of the Government orders on the subject. There is nothing on record to show that the manager had taken any steps in that regard or that there is no protected teacher available for appointment. INsofar as no protected teacher has been appointed in the school, the petitioner cannot now contend that notwithstanding the non- appointment of the protected teacher, the petitioner's appointment should be approved. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that some other appointments in the same school were approved later. Even if the same is true, that can only be an illegality, which cannot be directed to be perpetuated. IN the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.