SHARSHA M.M. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed to the post of Language Teacher (Part-Time) (Arabic) in the school managed by the 6th respondent, on 30/12/2019, in the retirement vacancy of one S.Pathumma Beevi, a Full-Time Arabic Teacher, who retired on 1/6/2019. Though the order of appointment along with the required documents was submitted by the 6th respondent Manager to the 5th respondent Assistant Educational Officer on 7/1/2020, he did not take any decision within the time stipulated in the K.E.R but passed an order on 3/2/2021 rejecting the approval of her appointment stating that the 6th respondent was having no authority as the Manager of the school. In the meantime, there were disputes regarding the approval of the Manager of the school, which led to the Director of General Education passing orders on 26/3/2015 cancelling the order of approval of the appointment of the Manager. The said action was challenged, and this Court, in its judgment dtd. 9/12/2020 in W.P(C) No.13441/2015, quashed the said order directing a fresh consideration. It is also to be noted that, throughout the writ petition, there was an order of stay of the order dtd. 26/3/2015.

(2.) The refusal of the approval of appointment of the petitioner was challenged in appeal before the 4th respondent District Educational Officer, who rejected the same by Ext.P4 order dtd. 6/7/2021. Though a revision was filed to the 2nd respondent, it was also rejected by Ext.P8 communication on 14/6/2022. The rejection was because the Manager had no recognition, and no appointment could have been made during 2019-2020, in view of the declaration of national lockdown with effect from 21/3/2020. Though the petitioner had also moved the Government seeking approval, the same was also rejected. The petitioner is a physically disabled person with hearing impairment, and the same is evident from Ext.P21. The petitioner, therefore, challenges Exts.P2, P4, P8, P9 and P20 orders and also seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 30/12/2019 with all consequential benefits.

(3.) The Government has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent stating that the management transfer was done in the year 2001 without obtaining proper sanction from the Director of General Education and, therefore, the order appointing the Manager was illegal. Consequently, the order dtd. 26/3/2015 was passed, cancelling the approval of the Manager and also appointing the District Educational Officer, Kottarakkara, as the Manager temporarily. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the appointment of the petitioner was rejected for the reason that an unapproved Manager made it and that the appointment made during the period 2019-2020 could not be allowed in view of the declaration of national lockdown. It is also urged that as per the Government Order dtd. 6/7/2021, the appointments in regular posts could be considered only with effect from 15/7/2021, if it is otherwise eligible.