SHEELATHA P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the petitioners are before this Court claiming appointment in the leave vacancy of Upper Primary School Assistant [for brevity "UPSA"]. The petitioners are referred to by their names and the documents from the respective writ petitions.

(2.) SHEELATHA P., the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1526 of 2005, is said to have been appointed by Exhibit P1 in the promotion vacancy of one J. Alphonsa between 09.06.1999 and 11.08.1999. However, the approval was rejected by order dated 19.11.2001, produced at Exhibit P2. Sheelatha is said to have been again appointed as per Exhibit P3, which is not the subject matter of the above writ petition and the same is said to have been approved also. The controversy arose since Exhibit P4 was issued by the District Educational Officer [for brevity "DEO"], which, in fact, overturned the seniority of the petitioner. The fact remains that the petitioner though served with the order of rejection at Exhibit P2 and though quite aware of the same, did not file an appeal against the order as provided under Rule 8 of Chapter XIV -A of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 [for brevity "KER"]. Much later, in the year 2004, the Manager is said to have filed an appeal, Exhibit P5, at the petitioner's instance, which was rejected by Exhibit P11 order, dated 07.10.2004. A revision petition is said to have been filed on 11.10.2004, as is seen at Exhibit P12. The revision also was dismissed by Exhibit P15.

(3.) IN this context, it is also pertinent that T. Mary, who is the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 17361 of 2006, was appointed subsequently to the petitioner in another leave vacancy between 14.06.1999 and 17.08.1999. The said appointment has been approved. In fact, it is to be noticed that Sheelatha was appointed on 09.06.1999 till 11.08.1999 and T. Mary was appointed on 14.05.1999, just five days after the appointment of the petitioner and she continued till 17.08.1999. The appointment of Mary has been approved.