JITHIN T Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these writ petitions, the main question that arises for consideration is whether the appointment of the 7th respondent in these writ petitions as HSST (Jr) in English with effect from 22/10/2011 was a direct recruitment or was it a by transfer appointment. Ext.P9 in W.P(C).No.23315 of 2024 is the order passed by the Government, wherein, it was found that the 7th respondent was appointed in the vacancy of HSST (Jr) in English as a by transfer appointment. The petitioners in both these writ petitions are aggrieved by the said finding, as according to them, it would affect their rights to continue in the posts of HSA (English) in the same school. These writ petitions are submitted in such circumstances, challenging the aforesaid Government Order. Ext.P9 in W.P(C)No.23315 of 2024 is produced as Ext.P13 in W.P(C)No.18825 of 2024, (For convenience, the parties and the exhibits are referred to hereinafter as per the sequences as referred to in W.P(C).No.23315 of 2024).

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows:

(3.) The petitioner was appointed as HSA (English) in the vacancy that arose consequent to the appointment of the 7th respondent with effect from 3/6/2013. However, later he was shifted to the regular vacancy of HSA (English) against which one Rajasree was appointed and the said Rajasree was shifted to the vacancy of the 7th respondent, giving preference to the senior appointee. The said Rajasree is the petitioner in W.P.C.No.18825 of 2024 and her appointment was with effect from 15/7/2015. The 5 th respondent approved the appointment of Rajasree from 15/7/2015 to 31/3/2016 on the presumption that the 7th respondent possesses a lien in the post of HST (English).