DINCY DAVIS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge the appointment granted to her pursuant to Ext.P6 in the post of Full Time Menial (FTM) issued by the 5th respondent Corporate Management, pointing out that she was entitled for consideration for appointment alteast from 2009 onwards.

(2.) The petitioner's mother was working with the 5th respondent, Corporate Management, as an L.G. (Hindi) teacher. The petitioner's mother is stated to have passed away on 12/9/1993. The petitioner attained majority on 27/6/2006 and submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment on 13/4/2007. The Manager refused to extend the appointment as above. The matter was considered by the Government pursuant to a revision petition filed by the petitioner. The Government found that insofar as the application filed did not contain the required documents, the rejection of the application by the 5th respondent was in order. At the same time, it was further found that the Manager should have given a reasonable time for resubmitting the application. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to submit the revised application with the required documents within a time frame, further directing the Manager to appoint the petitioner "in the existing vacancy or arising vacancy if no vacancy is existing in the school", provided the petitioner satisfies the conditions laid down in the Government Order referred to earlier.

(3.) The petitioner preferred W.P(C) No.3237 of 2012, seeking implementation of the above. The Manager filed W.P(C) No.7160 of 2012 seeking to challenge the same. This Court, by Ext.P2 judgment dtd. 21/10/2016, disposed of both the writ petitions by a common judgment. It was found by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment that the petitioner(claimant) was not qualified for the post of LPSA/UPSA either on the date of submission of the application or on the last date for submission of the application. At the same time, this Court further found that since the petitioner had passed SSLC and plus two qualifications within the time limit, she was qualified to hold the post of FTM, which comes within the zone of compassionate appointment scheme in the aided schools. In paragraph 37 of the judgment, this Court recorded the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as under: