SOUMYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the amendment to Rule 51A Chapter XIV A KER, brought into force w.e.f. 2005 onwards, enabling the Rule 51A claimant to have no necessity to establish 'identity with the post held' and to get appointed in any future vacancies in the "same, higher or lower category of teaching posts" contemplates only the 'vertical movement' (as to the widening of the zone) or it contemplates 'lateral expansion' as well, is the point to be considered and decided. The petitioner herein, who is a graduate in Sanskrit, having B. Ed. in Sanskrit as well, came to be appointed as a Junior Sanskrit Teacher (Part-time) in the 4th respondent's school, against a retirement vacancy of one Mr. P.C. Ramachandran which arose on 31-3-2008. By virtue of the relevant rules, the vacancy arising on the closing date of the academic year, or during the vacation, can be filled up only on or after the commencement of the next academic year and it was accordingly, that the petitioner came to be appointed in the vacancy, as per Ext. P-1 appointment order dated 2-6-2008.

(2.) In the meanwhile, the 5th respondent, who had worked in the 4th respondent's school earlier as a Lower Grade Hindi Teacher, in a leave vacancy during the period from 2-7-2003 to 17-9-2003, had filed a representation before the 4th respondent, referring to the vacancy which was to arise on 31-3-2008 and sought to appoint her, she being a Rule 51A claimant. Her case was that, though her earlier appointment was as a Lower Grade Hindi Teacher, she had passed the Sanskrit Teacher's Examination held in April 2004 and at the time when the vacancy arose on 31-3-2008. she was fully qualified for the post and hence was liable to be appointed. After filing the said representation, the 5th respondent approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) 16885 of 2008, which was disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said verdict, the matter was considered by the third respondent, who passed an order dated 14-8-2008 holding that the 5th respondent was a Rule 51A claimant, qualified to be appointed to the vacancy of Part-time Junior Sanskrit Teacher which arose on 31-3-2008 and directed the 4th respondent to appoint her to the said vacancy. Being aggrieved of the order dated 14-8-2008 passed by the third respondent, the petitioner preferred Ext. P-2 Revision Petition under Rule 8A of Chapter XIV A KER before the DPI.

(3.) When approval of Ext. P-1 appointment of the petitioner was sought for, the same came to be rejected by the third respondent as per Ext. P-3 order dated 26-8-2008, in view of his order dated 14-8-2008 upholding the claim of the 5th respondent. This was challenged by the 4th respondent/Manager by filing Ext. P-4 appeal before the second respondent.