RINCY A. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions raise the question of legality of Government Order dtd. 29/10/2022 on approval of appointments made to the post of UPST in the MT UP School, Alayamon, Anchal. The parties to the writ petitions and exhibits marked are referred to as they are referred to and marked in W.P.(C) No.35286/2022.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35286/2022 is a UPST appointed in the Aided School of which the 5th respondent is the Manager. The petitioner has B.Sc, B. Ed and K.TET qualifications. The petitioner was appointed as UPST on 1/12/2021 against a retirement vacancy which arose on and from 1/4/2020. The 4th respondent-AEO rejected approval to the appointment as per Ext.P2. In Ext.P2, it was stated that the appointment of the 6th respondent, a Rule 51B claimant, made in the same vacancy earlier was declined but the Manager did not withdraw the proposal for appointment of the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent had filed petitions before higher authorities.

(3.) The petitioner states that the 6th respondent was appointed earlier as UPST in the vacancy arose on 1/4/2020 as the husband of the 6th respondent died while in service, in harness. The appointment was made on 15/7/2021. The 6th respondent did not possess K-TET qualification and therefore the educational authorities refused approval to her appointment. Thereafter, the Manager appointed the petitioner in the said vacancy and subsequently the Manager has withdrawn the proposal of the appointment of the 6th respondent on 14/2/2022.