HELEN THILAKOM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. No. 36563 of 2002 is filed for implementing the order, G. O. (Rt) No. 4119/2002/g. Edn. dated 22. 11. 2002. O. P. No. 36789 of 2002 is filed challenging that order. Therefore, they are heard and disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) O. P. No. 36789/2002 The petitioner in this Original Petition is a part-time music Teacher working in the Light to the Blind School at Varkala. She was appointed by Ext. P2 order dated 2. 1. 1992. The said appointment was approved by ext. P3 order of the DEO dated 2. 1. 1997 with retrospective effect from 2. 1. 1992 to 31. 3. 1992 and thereafter with effect from 1. 6. 1992 without any time limit. The petitioner's school is run by a Corporate Educational Agency. It is having a few other schools also. One of them is Samuel LMS HS Parassala. A vacancy arose in the said school in the post of Music Teacher during the academic year 1999-2000. The Manager invited applications for appointment to that vacancy. The petitioner also submitted an application for that post. But, the 5th respondent Manager selected the 6th respondent and appointed her by Ext. P4 order dated 12. 7. 1999. Against Ext. P4 appointment order, the petitioner submitted a representation before the DEO The DEO by Ext. P6 order dated 17. 2. 2000 upheld the petitioner's claim and directed the Manager to appoint the petitioner to the vacancy in which the 6th respondent was appointed. The manager filed an appeal against Ext. P6 before the Deputy Director. That appeal was dismissed by Ext. P7 order dated 16. 3. 2001. Against Ext. P7, the Manager filed a revision before the D. P. I. That revision was allowed by the D. P. I. by ext. P8 order dated 27. 11. 2001. The D. P. I. rejected the claim of the petitioner and directed the approval of appointment of the 6th respondent. The D. P. I. held that the petitioner's school is a separate unit for the purpose of appointment governed by G. O. (P) No. 412/69/edn. dated 3. 11. 1969. Therefore, according to the d. P. I. , the provisions contained in R. 43 of Chap. 14-A KER will not apply to the petitioner's school. The petitioner filed Ext. P9 revision before the Government against Ext. P8. That was dismissed by Ext. P11 order, G. O. (Rt) No. 4119/02/g. Edn. dated 22. 11. 2002. The Government affirmed the view taken by the D. P. I. This Original Petition is filed challenging Exts. P8 and p11, and also seeking consequential reliefs. The 5th respondent Manager has filed a counter affidavit resisting the prayers of the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's school is also a school covered by the provisions of the kerala Education Act and the Rules. In support of that contention, he referred to S. 3 (5) of the Kerala Education Act and also R. 1 (iii) and 4 (i) of Chap. II of the Kerala Education Rules. It is also submitted relying on R. 35 of Chap. 14-A of ker that all the teachers working in various schools under the same Management should be treated as one unit for the purpose of seniority. THErefore, the staff of the petitioner's school should be treated as part of the unit and so the petitioner has a claim for appointment to the vacancies arising in higher grades in other schools by virtue of R. 43 of Chap. 14-A KER. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on Exts. P12 to P15 transfer orders transferring teachers from the petitioner's school to other schools.