N VIJAYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants did not succeed in their writ petition challenging the order declining their request to sanction increments in the posts against which they were appointed as per Exts. P 2, P 5 and P 7 which had been duly approved by the concerned educational officer. Their probation was also declared as is revealed from Exts. P 4, P 6 and P 8 respectively. While they were thus before this Court claiming increments, stated to be based on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered on 382004 in Civil Appeal No. 6753 of 2003 and connected cases, their services were terminated and in their place persons like respondents Nos. 9 to 12 advised by the Public Service Commission were accommodated. Consequently, the appellants amended their original petition impleading the Public Service Commission and the persons advised by the Commission as additional respondents and incorporating challenge against the termination of their service. The Original Petition was dismissed on 1412005. Therefore, this appeal, contending that the challenge against the termination order and the grounds in support thereof as incorporated in the amended Original Petition had never been adverted to in the judgment impugned.

(2.) It is submitted that Exhibit P 1 is a common judgment in the Original Petitions filed by them wherein their claim under R.51A of Chap.14(A) K.E.R had been upheld and directed to be followed. It is based on the said judgment, the appointment orders as referred to above had been issued to them and approval thereto was accorded and their probation was declared. In such circumstances, Ext. P 1 had become binding and conclusive between the parties; being an inter party judgment and any subsequent declaration of law by the Supreme Court in similar matter, including judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6753 of 2003, cannot affect the parties. On that basis their services could not have been terminated, the appellants contend.

(3.) In answer to this contention, it is submitted on behalf of the Panchayat, which appointed them, that the appellants were appointed initially based on a Government Order dated 6-10-1995, which provides that the appointment made by the Panchayat other than by the advice of the Public Service Commission shall be only on temporary basis and any regular appointment made in the Panchayat Schools shall be effected only on advice by the Public Service Commission. Therefore, their initial appointments itself were on a stop gap arrangement, wherefrom they cannot derive any benefit in terms of R.51A of Chap.14(A) K.E.R for future appointment on regular basis. It is further submitted that in Ext. P 1 judgment there is no conclusive finding as to such right available to the appellants for reappointment to the school managed by the Panchayat. It is further submitted that the Supreme Court has declared the law disentitling the persons like the appellants to claim appointment in terms of R.51A of Chap.14(A) K.E.R. Necessarily they have to face termination. That was what has been done in this case, counsel for the Panchayat contends.