ANUPAMA C.V. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Natural Science) in St. Thomas Higher Secondary School, Maruthemkara. The writ petition is filed with regard to the service rendered by her during the period from 06.10.2006 to 31.05.2011 at the M.I.M.H.S.S., Perode, where she was appointed as an HSA (Natural Science) against the leave vacancy of Sri. Ilyas, who had gone on leave without allowance for a period of five years with effect from 06.10.2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that although her appointment was sent for approval before the 3rd respondent District Educational Officer, the said approval was denied on the ground that the School in question, being a newly opened School which commenced in 1995 -1996, all vacancies in the said School had to be filled up by protected teachers going by the mandate in G.O.(P).No. 178/2002/Gen.Edn.dated 28.06.2002. It was the stand of the 3rd respondent in Ext.P3 order that insofar as the Manager was obliged to appoint only protected teachers against the leave vacancy, the appointment of the petitioner to the said vacancy could not be approved.

(2.) AGAINST Ext.P3 order, the Manager approached the Government which vide Ext.P7 order dated 07.04.2008 upheld Ext.P3 order of the 3rd respondent by maintaining that as per the Government orders in force, the School in question was obliged to appoint protected teachers and since the petitioner was not a protected teacher, her appointment to the leave vacancy could not be approved. It is challenging the orders refusing approval to the appointment of the petitioner that she has come up before this Court through this writ petition.

(3.) ON a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I notice that this is a case where there has been an appointment of the petitioner to a leave vacancy arising in the School for the period from 06.10.2006 to 31.05.2011. It is not in dispute that at the time when the appointment was made the Manager of the School had been complying with the requirements of the Government Order that mandated the appointment of protected teachers against vacancies that arose in the School. It is also not in dispute that at the time when the petitioner was appointed against the leave vacancy, there was no list of protected teachers, that was made available to the Manager of the School, for making appointment from among the said protected teachers. In this view of the matter, I find that the issue, as regards the legality of the insistence by the respondents that only protected teachers can be appointed to vacancies arising in newly opened Schools, stands concluded against the respondents by the decision of this Court in Nadeera v. State of Kerala : (2011 (3) KLT 790) which was upheld by the Division Bench in the decision reported in State of Kerala v. Nadeera : (2013 (2) KLT 88).