BINDU G. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an H.S.A. (Maths) working in the fifth respondent school. She was appointed to a regular vacancy in the post of H.S.A. (Maths) in the school with effect from 2.6.2003. While securing the said appointment, she had relied on the fact that she was a rule 51A claimant having worked in the said school for various spells between 1997 to 2001. The appointment of the petitioner to the post of H.S.A. (Maths) for the academic year 2003-2004 was however not approved by the fourth respondent. Against the rejection of approval, the petitioner availed of the statutory remedies before respondents 1, 2 and 3. These did not yield any positive result for the petitioner and the decision to deny the approval to the appointment of the petitioner was upheld by all the said authorities. The reason cited for refusing approval was that the two vacancies that had arisen in the post of H.S.A. during the year in question had to be filled by candidates who were qualified to hold the post of H.S.A. (English) and further that there was no post of H.S.A. to accommodate the petitioner who was an H.S.A. (Maths).

(2.) Aggrieved by the decisions of respondents 1 to 4, the petitioner approached this Court through W.P. (C) No. 10976/2006. The said writ petition was however dismissed by a learned single Judge. An appeal preferred against the said judgment also met with the same fate and by Ext. P6 judgment the Division Bench also rejected the claim of the petitioner. Thereafter the Government issued Ext. P8 Government order in the year 2009. Therein it was stated that those teacher who had obtained the benefit of rule 51A prior to 16.11.2002, could be accommodated to vacancies that arose in the school subsequent thereto based on the subject ratio that prevailed prior to 7.1.2002. The effect of this Government order was that the case of the petitioner could now be considered on the strength of the contention that she was a rule 51A claimant and further, that the subject ratio taking into account English as a subject would not have to be applied during the year 2003-2004 while considering whether the petitioner could be accommodated to a vacancy of H.S.A. that arose during the year in question. The petitioner therefore preferred a representation dated 18.6.2012 before the first respondent. When no action was forthcoming from the first respondent on the said representation, the petitioner approached this Court through W.P. (C) No. 26636/2012 which was disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation preferred by the petitioner. Thereupon, Ext. P9 order dated 16.7.2013 was passed by the first respondent. In the said order the first respondent, while finding that there was a vacancy during 2003-2004 for the petitioner to be accommodated by relying on Ext. P8 Government order, found that on account of an inspection conducted by the Super Check Cell, a division fall from 28 to 25 had been occasioned in the school and under those circumstances, the petitioner could not be considered for continuation in the school. Ext. P9 order is impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent wherein it is pointed out, based on Ext. P9 order, that the sole reason for not accommodating the petitioner for the year 2003-2004, was that there had been a division fall consequent to a verification conducted by the Super Check Cell and in those circumstances, there was no vacancy to which the petitioner could be accommodated.