NEETHA LUKOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 5/3/2021 in W.P.(C) No.34725 of 2019. The appellant was the petitioner in the writ petition. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, as they appear in the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as an Upper Primary School Teacher in St.Joseph's Higher Secondary School, Thiruvananthapuram (the School), initially in a temporary vacancy for the period from 28/7/2010 to 31/12/2013. In the meanwhile, another temporary vacancy arose in the School on 1/10/2013 and the Manager of the School shifted the petitioner to that vacancy. The petitioner was accordingly working in the said vacancy till 13/1/2014. The said appointment was approved initially on daily wage basis. Ext.P2 is the order of approval of the said appointment. Immediately on termination of the said vacancy, the petitioner was appointed in another temporary vacancy which arose in the School on 14/1/2014. The said appointment was also approved initially only on daily wage basis under two spells namely, 14/1/2014 to 31/3/2014 and from 1/6/2014 to 13/1/2015. Ext.P3 is the order of approval of the said appointment. As the appointments were approved only on daily wage basis, without vacation salary, the Manager of the School challenged Exts.P2 and P3 orders in appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, and in the said appeal, the Deputy Director of Education directed the Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the petitioner for the period from 1/10/2013 to 31/3/2014 and from 2/6/2014 to 13/1/2015 on regular scale. Ext.P9 is the order issued by the Deputy Director of Education in this regard. Dissatisfied with Ext.P9 order, inasmuch as the same declines salary to the petitioner for the period of vacation after the academic year 2013-14, the Manager preferred a revision petition against the said order before the then Director of Public Instruction, and in terms of Ext.P12 order, the Director affirmed Ext.P9 order. Ext.P12 order was though challenged by the petitioner in revision before the Government, in terms of Ext.P14 order, the Government affirmed Ext.P12 order.

(3.) In the meanwhile, on termination of the vacancy covered by Ext.P3 order, the petitioner was appointed again in the School in another temporary vacancy for the period from 14/1/2015 to 31/5/2017. Immediately thereupon, another temporary vacancy arose in the School on 1/6/2015. The Manager shifted the appointment of the petitioner to the said vacancy for the period from 1/6/2015 to 31/3/2017. As orders have not been passed approving the appointment of the petitioner for the period from 14/1/2015 to 31/5/2017 before the appointment of the petitioner was shifted to the vacancy which arose on 1/6/2015, the Educational Officer approved the said appointment of the petitioner only for the period from 14/1/2015 to 31/3/2015 on daily wage basis. Ext.P4 is the order issued by the Educational Officer in this regard. The appointment of the petitioner for the period from 1/6/2015 to 31/3/2017 was, however approved by the Educational Officer in the meanwhile on 31/1/2017. Ext.P5 is the order issued by the Educational Officer in this regard. According to the petitioner, the Educational Officer ought to have approved the appointment covered by Ext.P4 order on regular scale and she, therefore, challenged Ext.P4 order before the Government on that ground. Ext.P16 is the representation preferred by the petitioner in this regard before the Government. Ext.P16 representation was rejected by the Government in terms of Ext.P18 order. The writ petition was preferred challenging Exts.P14 and P18 orders.