HAKKEEM K. Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, MALAPPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are connected; therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment. First, I will narrate the facts in WP(C) No. 5691 of 2019.

(2.) The petitioner in this case, Sri. Hakkeem K. was appointed as the High School Assistant (English) (in short, 'HSA ') on 27/7/2011 in a leave vacancy that occurred consequent to the leave availed by Sri. Abdul Nazar K., for a period from 27/7/2011 to 31/3/2013. However, this appointment was approved by the 3 respondent, The District Educational Officer only on 16/7/2016. Ext.P1 is the appointment order. Later, the leave was extended by Sri. Abdul Nazar for a period from 3/6/2013 to 31/5/2014 and thereafter from 2/6/2014 to 31/5/2015. Hence the petitioner was again appointed in the extended leave period of Sri. Abdul Nazar. Since the appointment of the petitioner in the leave vacancy was not approved, it is the case of the petitioner that he made a request on 31/12/2014 to the 4 respondent, Manager, stating that he may be permitted to join duty on a permanent vacancy in the school. Ext.P2 is the request made by the petitioner. In Ext P2, the petitioner, in effect, requested the Manager to allow him to discontinue his service in the school, anticipating a permanent vacancy. The fourth respondent accepted the same as evident from the endorsement in Ext.P2. Meanwhile, in 2011-2012, an additional division vacancy in HSA (English) arose. To the said vacancy, one Smt. K.U. Anju was appointed. Later a permanent vacancy arose in the category of HSA (English) consequent to the retirement of Smt. P.B. Suma. To the said vacancy, Smt. K.U. Anju was appointed on 1/6/2015. The resultant additional division vacancy was filled up by appointing the 5 respondent Smt. Vidya Dharithri M.P. The appointment of the 5 respondent was rejected by the 3 respondent as per Ext.P3 order. The 5 respondent Smt. Vidya Dharithri filed an appeal against Ext.P3 order and it was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Education. However, the revision petition filed by the 5 respondent, Smt. Vidya Dharithri was allowed by the Director of Public Instructions as per Ext.P4 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, the petitioner filed a revision petition dtd. 30/10/2017 before the 1 respondent, The State Government, as evident by Ext.P5. The petitioner also approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 35525 of 2017 and this Court was pleased to stay Ext.P4 till the disposal of Ext.P5 revision as per Ext.P6 judgment.

(3.) According to the petitioner - Sri. Hakkeem K, he is a claimant of Rule 51A of Chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as, 'KER ') and he ought to have been appointed in a permanent vacancy that arose on 1/6/2015. The petitioner relied on a judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Soman P.S. v. A.K.M. High School [2013 (2) KHC 173] and contended that he is entitled to get the benefits under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV(A) of KER. It is the case of the petitioner that the manager appointed, the 5 respondent, Smt. Vidya Dharithri overlooking his claim. According to the petitioner, the manager has not followed the statutory mandates in Rule 51A before appointing Smt. Vidya Dharithri. It is the case of the petitioner that no notice was issued to the petitioner before appointing a fresh hand as stipulated under Note (2) of Rule 51A. But the Government as per Ext.P7 order, rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, WP(C) No. 5691 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner, Sri. Hakeem K. with the following prayers: