SHANKINI.M. RAJ Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was first appointed as UPST in the school under the corporate manager-ship of the fourth respondent on 1/6/2015 in a vacancy that arose on the promotion of Smt. Shiji M.M., UPST, as HSA (English). Shiji M.M. was promoted as HSA (English) in an anticipated vacancy during the academic year 2015-2016. However, the said post was not sanctioned for the year 2015- 2016, and accordingly, the appointment of the petitioner as UPST with effect from 1/6/2015 was not approved, and the third respondent rejected the same as per orders dtd. 27/10/2016. Thereafter, the Manager, again anticipating the sanctioning of the post of HSA for the academic year 2016-2017, promoted Shiji. M.M., and in the resultant vacancy, the petitioner was appointed as UPST as per order dtd. 1/6/2016, Ext.P1. No staff fixation order for the academic year 2016- 2017 was issued within the time stipulated, and when Ext.P1 order of appointment order was forwarded for approval, the same was directed to be resubmitted as and when the staff fixation order was issued.

(2.) The staff fixation order for the academic year 2016-2017 was issued on 15/7/2016, and a post of HST (English) was sanctioned and the appointment of Shiji. M.M. was approved, and consequently, the appointment of the petitioner also ought to have been approved. As stated earlier, the staff fixation order for the academic year 2016-2017 was delayed when another regular vacancy of UPST arose on 1/6/2017. The Manager, without shifting the petitioner to the said regular vacancy, appointed one Smt.Faseela C.M., as UPST. The petitioner was discharging her duties as UPST pursuant to Ext.P1 order. In the meantime, another regular vacancy of UPST arose on the school 1/6/2017 and the fourth respondent manager, without shifting the petitioner to said regular vacancy pending approval of her appointment, appointed Faseela. C.M. The proposal for approval of the appointment of Faseela C.M. was rejected by orders dtd. 26/10/2018 on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner, who was senior, was pending approval. The petitioner submits that she was continuously discharging her duties as UPST with effect from 1/6/2016 in the school and had marked the attendance till 23/9/2017., on which day she applied for maternity leave for her confinement from 23/9/2017 up to 21/3/2018. Since there were some complications post-delivery, the petitioner had to apply for leave without allowance from 23/9/2017 up to 23/8/2018. As the fourth respondent was not allowing the petitioner to rejoin duties and was not appointing in the regular vacancy, the petitioner had filed a representation before the third respondent dtd. 1/6/2018, which was directed to be considered by this Court by Ext.P2 judgment. When the petitioner approached the school on 1/6/2018, the petitioner was served with a copy of the proceedings dtd. 31/5/2016 by the fourth respondent terminating the services of the petitioner as UPST with effect from 1/6/2016. Thereafter, as directed in Ext.P2 judgment, the third respondent heard the matter and set aside the proceedings of the fourth respondent, terminating the service of the petitioner and directing the fourth respondent to re-consider the same by Ext.P3 proceedings. Again the Manager issued proceedings dtd. 14/3/2019 terminating the services of the petitioner as UPST and declared the appointment of the Smt.Faseela C.M. as UPST in the vacancy that arose on 1/6/2017 by Ext.P4 proceedings. The petitioner then approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 and also the appointment of Faseela C.M. as UPST with effect from 1/6/2017 by filing WP(C)No.12077/2019, which was disposed of by judgment dtd. 24/9/2020, Ext.P5.

(3.) The third respondent pursuant to Ext.P5 order passed Ext.P6 on 30/1/2021, directed the fourth respondent to submit the appointment order of the petitioner for approval with effect from 15/7/2016. The fourth respondent challenged Ext.P6 order by filing a revision before the second respondent, and pursuant to the directions of this Court in Ext.P7 judgment, the second respondent heard the parties and passed Ext.P8 order affirming Ext.P6 order and rejected the appeal filed by the manager. The petitioner challenged Ext.P8 order in a revision petition, which was directed to be disposed of by this Court in the Ext.P9 judgment. Smt Faseela C.M. had also filed a revision against the orders not approving her appointment with effect from 1/6/2017. Pursuant to the said directions, and without the hearing the petitioner, the revision filed by the manager was allowed setting aside Ext.P8 by order dtd. 16/3/2023, which is marked as Ext.P11, which is challenged in this writ petition.