A.K. ROOPA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fundamental questions raised in this Writ Appeal are the following:

(2.) Relevant facts, in brief, are the following: Appellant, despite having M.A. (English) and B.Ed. as educational qualifications., had to seek an appointment as Peon in E.V.U.P. School, Tuneri. Ext. P1 is the appointment order dated 27.7.2009 issued by the Manager of the school. Previously the appellant had worked as Teacher in the same school during leave vacancies. Appellant was appointed as Peon in the vacancy of one Sujith Kunhiparambath, who had been promoted as Assistant Teacher with effect from 27.7.2009. And at that time, Meenakshy, the previous Manager, was the approved Manager of the school. 4th respondent rejected the proposal to appoint the appellant as Peon for the reason that Meenakshy herself requested not to approve the appointments made by her. 5th respondent (present Manager) also informed the 4th respondent not to approve the appointments made by Meenakshy. Appellant understood that the 4th respondent rejected the proposal to appoint her on the basis of an agreement executed between Meenakshy and 5th respondent for change of management involving change of ownership of the school. Appellant would contend that the reason stated by the 4th respondent for rejecting the proposal for approval of her appointment is illegal. An appeal was preferred before the 3rd respondent against that order and it was disposed by two orders, Exts. P3 and P4. Meanwhile, 5th respondent took steps to terminate the services of the appellant. She approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 6648 of 2010, which culminated in Ext. P7 judgment. This Court directed the appellant that she should approach the Government in revision and till the disposal of the revision, she was permitted to continue in service. Thereafter, Ext. P8 revision was filed by her before the Government. Consistent contention raised by the appellant is that Meenakshy functioned as Manager till Ext. P6 order passed by the 4th respondent All her actions as approved Manager have been ratified by the 4th respondent it is the further contention of the appellant that Meenakshy, the approved Manager, after seeking prior permission of the authority for the change of management involving change of ownership by letter dated 24.03.2008, promoted K.P. Kamalam as Headmistress, and Sujith Kunhiparambath as Teacher and appointed Teachers, viz., Minija P.K., Deepa P.P., Bindhu K., and Sheeja C.M. These facts are evident from Ext. P8 series letters of appointment. All these appointments by the previous Manager have been approved by the authorities.

(3.) 1st respondent as per Ext. P9 order rejected the revision filed by the appellant stating that Meenakshy, as per letter dated 24.03.2008, had requested for transfer of management and the Director of Public Instruction had granted approval from 24.3.2008 onwards. Hence the appellant has challenged Ext. P9 order also. 6th respondent is the person appointed as Peon in the school with effect from 5.3.2010. 6th respondent was over aged for appointment as Peon, since he crossed 35 years on 5.3.2010, which is the maximum age for appointment of a non-teaching staff under Rule 5 Chapter XXIV B of the K.E.R.. Unjustifiably, the 1st respondent as per Ext. P21 order granted age relaxation and directed to approve 6th respondent' s appointment as Peon. Ext. P22 circular issued by the Government as early as in 1986 deprecated the practice of Managers appointing over aged persons as non-teaching staff and then requesting for relaxation of age. Ext. P21 order was passed by the Government ignoring Ext. P22 and that too, without hearing the appellant. Therefore, Ext. P21 order is illegal.