M.N. SHEENA Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS were appointed as Upper Primary School Assistants (hereinafter referred to as UPSAs) in an aided school managed by the sixth respondent. Both of them are graduates with B.Ed, appointed as UPSAs after reverting the incumbent UPSAs as Lower Primary School Assistants (hereinafter referred to as LPS A), against open vacancies in LP School, which arose on retirement. As common questions arise in these cases, I am disposing of the same together.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in W.P(c) No. 14868/2009 is as follows: A vacancy of LPSA arose in the school managed by the sixth respondent with effect from 1.6.2005, consequent to a retirement. The manager of the school reverted Smt. Geetha, who was working as UPSA and posted her as LPSA against the retirement vacancy. In the resultant vacancy he appointed the petitioner as UPSA with effect from 27.6.2005, as per Exhibit P1. The Assistant Educational Officer, Kodungalloor approved her appointment as per endorsement dated 6.6.2006 in Exhibit -P1, with effect from the date of appointment. The audit team under the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur, when conducted audit for the period from 1.04.2006 to 31.5.2007, raised objections against the appointment of petitioner. As per Exhibit P2 letter dated 4.3.2008, the Assistant Educational Officer forwarded the relevant extract of the audit objection (produced as Exhibit P3) and directed the Headmaster of the school to rectify the defects and to recover excess amount drawn. The objection raised in the audit was that when the vacancy arose in LP School, the action of the manager in appointing a teacher in the UP section after creating a vacancy of UPSA by reverting the incumbent therein as LPSA, was not permissible; the vacancy in LP School should have been filled up by a person with the qualification of TTC; but the manager filled up the vacancy by reverting Smt. Geetha, who is a graduate with B.Ed. and moreover the duties attached to the posts of UPSAs and LPSAs are different.

(3.) PETITIONER thereupon has approached this Court challenging the orders Exts. P3, P5, P9 and P13, praying for a declaration that her appointment is valid and for consequential directions to grant her salary and all other benefit.