BOBY CHRISTOPHER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as HSST Junior (Chemistry) at the 4th respondent School. She was originally appointed by direct recruitment with effect from 9.7.2001. Ext. P1 is the appointment order issued to her. On the strength of Ext. P1 order, she joined the School as evidenced by Ext. P1(a) joining report. The approval to the said appointment of the petitioner was not, however, granted by the respondents on account of the fact that there was a ban on appointments consequent to litigation that was pending in court, with regard to the necessity of teachers possessing SET qualification and other related issues. The ban was subsequently lifted only with effect from 12.2.2001. Since the petitioner had been appointed only with effect from 9.7.2001, and by that time the ban on appointments had already been lifted, she approached the respondents through representations for getting her appointment approved. In the meanwhile, by virtue of a Division Bench judgment of this Court, it was clarified that appointments made between 13.2.2001 and 12.11.2001 could also be approved by the Government, and in accordance with the said clarification issued by the Division Bench of this Court, the Government proceeded to issue Ext. P9 compliance order dated 24.7.2003, directing the Director of Higher Education to approve the appointment made during the said period. In the case of the petitioner however, even before Ext. P9 Government order was issued, and on account of the ambiguity that prevailed, the 4th respondent issued a fresh appointment order, appointing the petitioner with effect from 3.2.2003. Ext. P10 is the fresh appointment order that was issued to the petitioner. The said appointment was approved by Ext. P11 order dated 6.2.2004 with effect from 30.6.2003. The petitioner was, however, aggrieved by the non-approval of her appointment for the period from 9.7.2001 to 30.6.2003 and therefore took up the matter yet again with the Government. It is relevant to note that in the meanwhile, by Ext. P12 order dated 7.5.2007, the Government modified Ext. P9 order dated 24.7.2003, by clarifying that in the case of those teachers who had obtained SET qualification subsequently, but who were appointed during the ban period between 14.2.2001 and 12.11.2001, their appointments could be approved with effect from the date of their appointment. It was further clarified in the said order that the arrears of salary in respect of the said teachers would be merged in the P.F. account and the amount so merged would be allowed to be drawn only after 30.11.2011. In the light of the clarifications obtained through Ext. P12 order, the petitioner again approached the respondents with a claim for approving her appointment as HSST Junior (Chemistry) in the 4th respondent School with effect from 9.7.2001. By Ext. P15 order dated 6.12.2007, the 2nd respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner. On a further representation made before the 1st respondent, Ext. P18 order dated 23.3.2012 was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Ext. P18 order of the Government is impugned in the writ petition, where there is also a prayer for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled for approval and salary with effect from the date of her appointment, namely, 9.7.2001.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent Manager where the stand taken is in support of the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard Sri Paulson Thomas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Smt. Sunitha Vinod, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 as also Sri John Joseph Vettikad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent.