MINI A K Vs. STYATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case of the petitioners is as follows: First petitioner is the manager. Second petitioner is a teacher appointed with effect from 01-11-2000 to 04-01-2001 as H.S.A. against a leave vacancy of Smt.Anitha (Natural Science). Initially the approval sought of her appointment was rejected by the D.E.O. as also by the Deputy Director on the ground tha,t the school is a newly upgraded one and the manager has to absorb the protected teachers. Thereafter, on the basis of Ext.P1 issued by the Director of Public Instruction, by Ext.P6 D.E.O granted approval to the said appointment against the leave vacancy. On 31-03-01, the Headmistress of the school retired from service. Against the said vacancy, one Smt. Radhamma (Natural Science) was promoted as Headmistress with effect from 01-06-2001. Against the consequential vacancy of H.S.A. (Natural Science) second petitioner came to be appointed as H.S.A. (Natural Science) vide Ext.P7 order. The District Educational Officer declined the approval on the ground that there is no protected teacher. By Ext.P2 the Deputy Director allowed appeal. Manager resubmitted the proposal before the D.E.O. for approval. By Ext.P3, D.E.O. again rejected the approval on the ground that the subject ratio is not satisfied in the appointment of the second petitioner.

(2.) First petitioner preferred revision before the Government. That came to be rejected by Ext.P4. Against the same, first petitioner preferred a review petition. That came to be rejected by Ext.P5. Petitioners challenge Exts.P3 to P5 orders. It is to be noted that in Ext.P5 Government has in fact cancelled the approval granted to the appointment of the second petitioner against the leave vacancy vide Ext.P6.

(3.) In Ext.P4, two reasons are given. Firstly it is stated that during 2000-01 the sanctioned post of Physical Science in the school were 4 and only three teachers were appointed and for the natural science two posts were sanctioned against which three teachers were working. It is stated that second petitioner is a natural science hand while the dearth is in Physical Science. It is also stated that absorption of protected teacher was not done. Ext.P5 is an order passed on the purported review petition. It is difficult to understand how a review petition is maintainable against Ext.P4 under Rule 93 as only original orders can be reviewed. Therefore Ext.P5 order can be treated as an order passed without jurisdiction. In Ext.P5 of course it is inter-alia stated that the position mentioned in Ext.P5 was not reported by the DPI at the time of consideration and the very appointment of the second petitioner in leave vacancy is irregular and it did not satisfy subject ratio.