SAJITHA P Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to challenge Ext.P2, P5 and P12 and for a direction to respondents 1 to 5 to permit the petitioner to continue in service as an Arabic Teacher (Full Time) UPSA in AUP School, Patterkulam with all service benefits including monitory benefits.

(2.) The short issue involved in the writ petition is with reference to the respective claims between the petitioner as well as the 6th respondent. Petitioner was appointed as an Arabic Teacher (Full Time) UPSA in AUP School, Patterkulam as per order dated 15/07/1999. The 6th respondent was appointed in the Lower Primary Section (for short 'LP Section') prior to the aforesaid date, on 01/06/1999. On account of a staff fixation order issued by the educational authorities, one post of Arabic teacher in the LP Section was reduced. Accordingly, the petitioner, being the junior most was relieved as per Ext.P2 order dated 03/08/2009. The petitioner challenged the same inter alia contending that since the staff fixation order clearly indicated that the post of Lower Primary School Assistant (for short 'LPSA') was in excess, the 6th respondent ought to have been retrenched. The Deputy Director of Education (DDE), confirmed the action taken by the Assistant Educational Officer (AEO). The matter was carried in revision, which resulted in Ext.P7 order dated 01/12/2011. The Director of Public Instructions reversed the orders issued by the lower authorities and observed that since the post was reduced from LPSA, the petitioner has to be retained and the 6th respondent had to be retrenched. The matter was carried in revision before the Government by the 6th respondent which resulted in Ext.P10 order in favour of the 6th respondent. The matter was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.C.No.13247/2012. The impugned order was set aside by this Court and the matter was directed to be reconsidered, which ultimately resulted in Ext.P12 order dated 27/09/2012 by which the orders passed by the AEO and DDE were upheld by the Government. It is inter alia contended by the petitioner that in so far as the teachers in the LP Section and UP Section belong to two different categories, when the fall in vacancy had occurred in LP Section, seniority has to be reckoned with reference to the post of LPSA alone and there cannot be a common seniority list of LPSA and UPSA. When such a consideration is being made, the petitioner will be entitled to continue the post and the 6th respondent may have to be retrenched.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Thresia.M.L. v. Preethy M.P.,2014 4 KHC 822 (FB) in which after considering the issue whether retrenchment of teachers has to be based on a combined seniority list of LPSA and UPSA, it was held by this Court in paragraph 17 as under: