T ARAJASREE Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposal by this common judgment. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15575/2013 is the 5th respondent in W.P.(C).No.14031/2014 and the petitioner in the latter writ petition is the 5th respondent in the former. For the sake of convenience, the reference to facts and exhibits are from W.P.(C). No.15575/2013.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as UPSA under the 4th respondent School with effect from 1.6.2001. She is a person who possesses the qualifications of B.Sc. in Maths, M.A. in English and a B.Ed. in Maths. While working as a UPSA, she was accommodated against a leave vacancy of H.S.A. (Maths) for the period from 29.10.2002 to 12.3.2003. Thereafter in the academic year 2004-05, the petitioner was promoted as H.S.A. (English) with effect from 21.7.2004. At the time of arising of the vacancy in the post of H.S.A. (English), namely, 21.7.2004, the qualification to be possessed by a candidate seeking appointment to the post of H.S.A. (English) was prescribed by Government Order G.O.(MS).No.11/2002/G.Edn. dated 7.11.2002 as follows: (1) A Degree in English Language and literature and (2) B.Ed/BT/LT with English as optional subject confirmed or recognized by any of the Universities in Kerala; / in the absence of those with qualification in item No.(2), candidates with B.Ed./BT/LT in any other subject confirmed or recognized by any of the Universities in Kerala will be considered. It would appear that this qualification that was prescribed by the aforesaid Government Order was subsequently incorporated in Rule 2 (x) of Chapter XXXI of the Kerala Education Rules, hereinafter referred to as the 'KER'. The petitioner, as already noted, had a degree in English language and Literature but did not have a B.Ed. with English as an optional subject. However, taking into account the fact that there was no other candidate who was willing to be considered for the post of H.S.A. (English) as on that date, the petitioner was appointed in view of her alternate qualification of B.Ed. in Maths, for the post of H.S.A. (English). It was thus that the petitioner came to be appointed as H.S.A. (English) with effect from 21.7.2004.

(3.) When the appointments of the petitioner, as H.S.A. (Maths) for the period from 29.10.2002 to 12.3.2003 and as H.S.A. (English) with effect from 21.7.2004, was sent for approval to the Educational Authorities, the said appointments were not approved stating that there was no approved Manager in the School. Against the rejection of approval, to the appointments of the petitioner, she preferred a revision petition before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent vide Ext.P2 order dated 3.8.2006, approved the appointment of the petitioner as H.S.A. (Maths), but the said order did not contain any finding with regard to the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as H.S.A. (English). In view of this lacuna, the petitioner preferred a review petition before the 1st respondent. That resulted in Ext.P3 order dated 20.12.2006, whereby the 1st respondent directed the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as H.S.A. (English) with effect from 21.7.2004. Pursuant to Ext.P3 order of the 1st respondent, Ext.P4 consequential order was also passed whereby the appointment of the petitioner as H.S.A. (English) was approved for the period from 21.7.2004 to 14.7.2006. By yet another order namely Ext.P5 dated 25.10.2007, the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as H.S.A. (English) was made effective from 21.7.2004 onwards without any time limit. It would appear that, in the meanwhile, against Ext.P4 order that was passed consequent to Ext.P3 order of the 1st respondent, the 5th respondent approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.15048/2007 challenging both Ext.P3 order as also Ext.P4 consequential order. The writ petition was dismissed by Ext.P8 judgment dated 13.8.2007. It was immediately thereafter that Ext.P5 order dated 25.10.2007 was passed which approved the appointment of the petitioner as H.S.A. (English) with effect from 21.7.2004 onwards without any time limit. The 5th respondent preferred an appeal (W.A.No.2410/2007) against Ext.P8 judgment of this Court. The said appeal was later referred to the Full Bench, to decide upon the issue as to whether a review petition would lie against an order passed by the Government in a revision application.