P V GEORGE Vs. D E O ALWAYE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd Petitioner was appointed as a Mathematics teacher in the leave vacancy of one Behanan, during the period from 1-6-1981 to 30-8-1983, and the appointment for the whole period was duly approved. Consequent on staff fixation for 1982-83, four junior teachers became surplus. They were liable to be "retrenched", but were also entitled to "protection". However, by Ext. P4 order dated 9-11-1982, the District Educational Officer directed that the 2nd petitioner should be sent out retrospectively from 15-7-1982 and the salary paid thereafter should be recovered from her.

(2.) The 2nd petitioner was appointed in a leave vacancy. She had every right to continue in the vacancy, till Shri. Behanan returned. Her case was not affected by the staff fixation order at all. There is nothing in the Act and the Rules which authorises the Educational authorities to deal with the services of a teacher working in a leave vacancy, in the manner done.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader submits that one of the four protected teachers was a Mathematics hand and that that teacher could easily have taken the place of the 2nd petitioner who was only in a leave vacancy. Such a question could not have arisen if Behanan had not gone on leave. He was a senior teacher and had a "right" to the post, which remained unaffected by the staff fixation in question. The 2nd petitioner was only standing in Behanan's shoes, and so long as Behanan was beyond the reach of retrenchment, the 2nd petitioner was also entitled to continue.