SUMINI U. Vs. GURUVAYUR DEVASOM BOARD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was working under the 4th respondent in Guruvayur Devaswom English Medium School, from the academic year 2003 -2004 onwards till the end of the academic year 2006 -07, has approached this Court aggrieved by the denial of regular appointment, while teachers who were appointed along with her and denied employment since the academic year 2007 -08 were given regular appointment in the year 2012.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, she is a Post Graduate in Malayalam and she was appointed in the 4th respondent school initially in June, 2003 for that academic year. The 4th respondent English Medium School is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education and is under the management of the Guruvayur Devaswom Board. According to the petitioner, M/s. Usha K.K., Vinaya C, Malathy B.J. and Nisha M. were also working in the school along with her on the basis of similar engagement. Several other teachers were also engaged in the school along with her in the year 2003. The practice adopted in the school was that teachers would be relieved at the end of the academic year and they will be reengaged in the next academic year. When such re -engagement was denied in June, 2007, some of the teachers who were denied engagement approached this Court in W.P.(c) No. 18052 of 2008, which was dismissed, however, with direction to respondents 1 to 3 to take prompt steps for registration of the bye -laws and preparation of the rules/regulations for making regular appointment.. Against that judgment, Writ Appeal No. 2159 of 2009 was filed. The Writ Appeal was disposed of with the following observation in paragraph 2 of the judgment:

(3.) THEREAFTER , when the Devaswom Board invited application afresh, some of the petitioners who approached this Court submitted their applications, based on which they were engaged. Thereafter the Devaswom Board passed a resolution on 20.05.2012, which is produced as Ext. R1(b), by which it was decided to reappoint the teachers who were already disengaged. The reappointment was to be on fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in the resolution itself. The Board in its meeting held on 07.05.2012 had considered the question regarding disengagement of teachers like the petitioner in the light of the decisions of this Court in W.A Nos. 2252 of 2009 and 2159 of 2009. It was found that 8 teachers who had service above 2 years were disengaged and those 8 persons were found to be eligible for continuance in service and therefore it was decided to reappoint them and to grant the benefits w.e.f the date on which they commenced service. It was decided to give them regular appointment with effect from 20.05.2012, treating them as continuing in service with effect from the date of their initial entry in the school. When the list of teachers having 2 years service was prepared on 25.11.2010, 22 of the existing teachers were found included, out of which, 4 were given regular appointment in 2 stages. As the remaining 18 were also found eligible for confirmation, as per the bye -laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education, it was decided to give them also regular appointment with effect from 20.05.2012. Since the vacancies available were not sufficient to accommodate all the 26 teachers, ie. including the 8 persons who were appointed, it was decided that 4 of them would be given regular appointment against future vacancies giving them preferential claim. The 8 teachers who were disengaged were thus re -admitted on the basis of the decision of the Managing Committee taken on 20.12.2012 and considering the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 1824 of 2011 of this Court. They were granted regular appointment w.e.f 20.05.2012, treating them as continuing in service w.e.f the date of their initial entry. It was therefore decided that the first 26 persons will be given preference against the vacancies in the concerned subjects on the basis of their date of entry in service; in the event of those who entered service on the same day, reappointment will be given on the basis of the date of appointment; as it is unable to give appointment to 4 teachers against the available vacancies, they will be considered against future vacancies giving them preferential claim.