C. KALAVATHY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in WP(C) No.25385/12 who is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by her.

(2.) The appellant was appointed as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in the 5th respondent school for the period from 11/8/04 to 30/6/08 and the appointment was approved by the departmental authorities. Subsequently, a retirement vacancy arose in the school in the category of UPSA w.e.f. 1/6/11 and the appellant was appointed to that vacancy in recognition of her claim under Rule 51A Chapter XIV A KER. However, by Ext.P1 order, the Assistant Educational Officer declined to approve her appointment on the ground that the 7th respondent is a senior claimant who had approved service during the period from 1/6/09 to 31/3/10.

(3.) The DEO and the Deputy Director of Education rejected the appeal and revision filed by the appellant as per Ext.P3 and Ext.P6 orders. Subsequently, the Assistant Educational Officer issued Ext.P10 order requiring the Manager to re-appoint the 7th respondent and that order was confirmed by the Government in Ext.P12 order rejecting the revision filed by the appellant. It is in the above circumstances, the writ petition was filed by the appellant contending that by the time the vacancy of UPSA arose w.e.f. 1/6/11, she had acquired TTC on 21/8/10 and that therefore, in view of the amendment to Rule 51A Chapter XIV A KER effected in 2005, she was entitled to be appointed to that vacancy. However, interpreting Rule 51A as amended in 2005, learned single Judge held the 7th respondent to be the rightful claimant and the impugned orders were also upheld. It is this judgment which is called in question before us.