MINI ANTONY Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The rival claims of the petitioner and the 6th respondent for appointment to the post of HSA (Malayalam) in the 5th respondent's school against a short term vacancy from 5.6.2007 to 27.9.2007 and thereafter on regular basis from 20.6.2008 are to be resolved in this Writ Petition. The facts, in succinct, relevant for the purpose of deciding the aforesaid issue are as hereunder:-

(2.) Counter affidavits have been filed separately by the 5th and the 6th respondents. The 5th respondent, who is the Manager of the school supports the claims and contentions of the petitioner whereas the 6th respondent, who is the rival claimant in the post of HSA(Malayalam) that was available from 5.6.2007 to 29.9.2007 and thereafter on regular basis from 20.6.2008, refuted the claims and contentions of the petitioner and supported Ext.P8.

(3.) With respect to certain factual aspects involved in this case, there is no dispute. The fact that the petitioner was appointed as HSA(Malayalam) as per Ext.P1 from 27.10.1993 to 14.1.1994 and thereafter, in the same post on different short spells and that all such appointments were duly approved by the first respondent are undisputed. So also there is no dispute regarding the date of regular appointment of the 6th respondent as UPSA in the 5th respondent's school viz., from 6.6.1994. it is also not in dispute that he acquired the qualification of B.A Degree in Malayalam on 2.6.2007 and the training qualification acquired by him earlier, is in Social Studies and not in Malayalam. The short term vacancy in question arose on 5.6.2007 and the regular vacancy in the said post occurred on 20.6.2008 and admittedly, at the time of occurrence of the said vacancies, both the petitioner and the 6th respondent were working as UPSAs in the 5th respondent's school. The contention of the 6th respondent is that on the relevant dates, he was not only fully qualified for appointment as HSA (Malayalam) but also was the senior most claimant under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A of the KER. Therefore, according to him, there is absolutely no illegality in Ext.P8 order holding him as the rightful claimant as against the short term vacancy in the post of HAS (Malayalam) from 5.6.2007 to 29.9.2007 and thereafter, on regular basis from 20.6.2008 and also treating both of them as Rule 43 claimants. The contention of the petitioner is that her appointments as HSA (Malayalam) commencing from 27.10.1993 till 5.12.2003, under different spells, were admittedly approved by the first respondent and by virtue of such approved service in the post of HSA(Malayalam), she became a claimant under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV of KER as regards that post. According to her, by virtue of her being a claimant under 51A, she was entitled to get appointment against the said short term leave vacancy that has arisen on 5.6.2007 and also against the regular vacancy from 20.6.2008. At the same time, it is contended that the 6th respondent was lacking the qualification for being appointed as HSA (Malayalam) inasmuch as his B.Ed Degree is not in Malayalam whilst in Social Studies. According to the petitioner, both the degree qualification and training qualification prescribed under Rule 2(2)(b)(i) of Chapter XIV-A of the KER should be in Malayalam to earn eligibility for appointment as HSA (Malayalam). That apart, it is contended that by virtue of Ext.P9 judgment and in view of the amendment brought into Rule 51A, a Rule 51A claimant was to be appointment to higher posts.