SARANYA M NAIR Vs. MANAGER; ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER; DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION; DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION; STATE OF KERALA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions, the parties and the matters in issue involvedare same. So, both writ petitions are heard together and disposed of accordingly.

(2.) The 1st respondent/Manager has three schools viz., Aided Mappila Lower Primary School, Kundilparamba, AidedMappilaUpperPrimary School, Kundilparamba, and Aided Lower Primary School, Pullithara. The petitioner wasinitially appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant (LPSA) in a leave vacancy that arose on 17/12/2008 to 30/4/2009 by the 1st respondent, who is the Manager of the School, by Ext.P1. Thereafter, another vacancy was available in the school consequent on the leave availed of by one Abdulrahiman.K., for a period from 1/6/2009 to 25/4/2013 and the 1st respondent re-appointed the petitioner to the said vacancy on 1/6/2009 and the said appointment was approved by Ext.P2. Now, a permanent vacancy arose in the school consequent upon the resignation tendered by one Sri. A. Pramod with effect from 1/6/2010 and the Manager, by Ext.P3, appointed the petitioner in the said permanent vacancy. In the academic year 2006- 2007 onwards several vacancies arose in the above schools. Accordingly, the 1st respondent, in spite of the fact that the Government had issued ban on appointments as per Government Order, G.O. (P) No. 317/05/G.Edn. dated17/8/2005, appointed the respondents 6 and 7 in the additional division vacancies with effect from 25/7/2007 and 15/7/2006 respectively. Since both the appointments were in the additional division vacancies, the Educational Authorities rejected the claim of their approval; but, at the same time, the appointment of the petitioner as 'LPSA' was approved by the Department as per Ext.P2 and she was drawing salary in the scale. In the academic year 2010-11 there was reduction of two posts consequent on the reduction in number of students in the school. Accordingly, two posts were abolished as per Ext.P4 staff fixation order issued by the 2nd respondent. In the meantime, there arose two permanent vacancies of Lower Primary School Assistants in theschool, consequent on the resignation of one Sri. M.V. Babu and another Sri. A. Pramod, who also tendered resignation with effect from 14/7/2009 and the Manager appointed one Sri. Deepak in one of the resignation vacancies available in the school. At that juncture, the 6th and 7th respondents filed WP.(c) Nos.38643/2010 and 37923/2010 before this Court seeking a direction to consider their approval by the Director of Public Instructions and on the basis of the direction issued by this Court, the Director of Public Instructions heard the matter and passed Ext.P5 order; whereby the Director of Public Instructions ordered to shift the appointments of the 6th and 7th respondents to the resignation vacanciesand the petitioner was directed to be shifted to the leave without allowance vacancy of Sri. Abdulrahiman.K. The Manager, challenged the said order by filing a revision before the Government. The Government, by Ext.P6, affirmed Ext.P5 on a finding that the revision deserves no consideration. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Government has not considered the issue in its correct and true perspective.

(3.) On the basis of Ext.P6, the Manager issued orders shifting the petitioner to the leave without allowance vacancy, by Ext.P7. Consequently, the Assistant Educational Officer also issued Ext.P8 order approving the appointments of the respondents 6 and 7 from15/7/2010 onwards. Though the appointments of the respondents 6 and 7 were from 25/7/2007 and 15/7/2006 respectively, the same have not so far been approved by the educational authorities till date and the same was barred under theban onthe appointment issued by the Government as per G.O. (P) No.317/05/G.Edn. dated 17/8/2005; whereas the appointment of the petitioner from 1/6/2009 was a valid one approved by the authority. Therefore, shifting of the petitioner from a permanent vacancy to a leave vacancy without allowance on the basis of Exts.P5, P6, P7 and P8 orders are liable to be quashed, invoking the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.