PRAJNA R. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P4 Staff Fixation Order to the extent it retrenches the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks to direct respondents 2 and 3 to accommodate the petitioner in the HTV Vacancy from 15/7/2024 onwards after recalling the 5th respondent.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as UPST in the 4th respondent's School with effect from 15/7/2021, against a retirement vacancy. Her appointment was provisionally approved as per Ext.P2 order, subject to the claims of PwD candidates. In the year 2023-2024, due to want of building accommodation, one post of UPST was reduced. However, the petitioner continued in the School, drawing salary.

(3.) In the year 2024-2025, the petitioner was ordered to be retrenched. The 4th respondent-Manager was required to appoint a protected Teacher in the HTV vacancy. The Manager informed the 3rd respondent-AEO that the petitioner is a Rule 51A claimant and therefore entitled to protection in the HTV vacancy. The Manager requested the 2nd respondent-DDE to set right the illegality in retrenching the petitioner. The 2nd respondent, however, issued order deploying the 5th respondent to the HTV vacancy.