LIGY GEORGE A Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein, two in number, were appointed as UPSA's in the school under the management of the 4th respondent, with effect from 14.06.2000, by Exts.P1 and P2 orders, for the period from 14.06.2000 to 12.04.2002 and from 14.06.2000 to 17.10.2000, respectively. The said short spells of appointment were approved by the educational authorities. The said spells of appointment also conferred rights on the petitioners in terms of Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A Kerala Education Rules, for preferential appointment to subsequent arising vacancies in the school. The 1st petitioner was thereafter appointed on regular basis, with effect from 05.06.2002 by Ext.P3 order, to an additional divisional vacancy that had arisen in the school. The said appointment was not, however, approved, citing the reason that there was a senior Rule 51A claimant in the school, who was awaiting absorption and therefore, the 1st petitioner's case could be considered only after Thereafter, the 1st accommodating the said senior claimant. petitioner was appointed in various subsequent vacancies, the details of which are narrated in the writ petition, and the orders produced as Exts.P5, P7, P9 and P11. The said appointments were also not approved, citing various reasons, all of which may be irrelevant considering the fact that, the basic objection which led to the denial of approval to the appointment of the 1st petitioner as per Ext.P3 appointment order itself stood removed subsequently through the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.370/2012 filed by Smt.Lekha K.R., which allowed her writ petition by finding that the said Smt. Lekha was entitled to continue in the school for the period from 05.07.2002 to 05.08.2007, pursuant to a protection against retrenchment by application of the 1:40 ratio. The judgment made it clear that Smt. Lekha KR was not a R.51A claimant and the protection given to her was by application of the 1:40 ratio. It is apparent, therefore, that the reasons cited in Ext.P4 order for denial of approval to the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 05.06.2002, namely, that Smt. Lekha K.R. was a prior claimant, was not a valid one, since Smt. Lekha K.R. was not a senior Rule 51A claimant. This aspect was also noticed subsequently by the DEO himself in Ext.P6 order, where, he found that the 1st petitioner was in fact the senior most Rule 51A claimant, who could be appointed against a vacancy, that arose in the school, in the post of UPSA.

(2.) As regards the 2nd petitioner, she was appointed in a regular promotion vacancy, that arose in the cadre of UPSA, consequent to the promotion of Smt. Bindu V.N. as HSA (Malayalam). In Ext.P14 order passed by the DEO, denying approval to the said appointment, the reason stated for denial of approval was that, the 2nd petitioner could not have been appointed to the vacancy arising consequent to the leave availed by Smt.Bindu V.N (erroneously stated in the order as Smt. Bindu C.G), since the promotion of Smt.Bindu N.V. as HSA(Malayalam) was rejected with effect from 05.06.2002, and there was therefore no resultant vacancy in the cadre of UPSA to accommodate the 2nd petitioner. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that Smt.Bindu V.N. subsequently approached this Court through W.P. (C).No.28261/2009, and by judgment dated 05.08.2010, the said writ petition was allowed and Smt.Bindu V.N. was held entitled to an approval to her appointment as HSA(Malayalam), with effect from 05.06.2002. Although, during the period till the judgment dated 05.08.2010 of this Court , the 2nd petitioner was also appointed in various spells in the school in question and the said appointments were also not approved by the educational authorities, stating various reasons, a reference to the said appointment orders, and the orders denying approval, may be unnecessary at this stage since, by the judgment dated 05.08.2010, the basic reason for denial of approval to the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 05.06.2002, stood removed.

(3.) It would appear that, while matters stood thus, when the Teachers package was introduced by a Government order in 2011, the petitioners herein had approached this Court through a writ petition and this Court had by Ext.P27 judgment, directed the Government to pass orders on various revision petitions that had been preferred inter alia by the petitioners, challenging various orders by which approval to their appointments in various spells in the school were rejected by the educational authorities. The Government by Ext.P28 order dated 29.11.2011, disposed the revision petitions by directing the DEO to examine whether the petitioners could be included in the list of retrenched Teachers, as per the criteria mentioned in the 2011 Government Order, and if so, to regularise their appointment with effect from 01.06.2011. As a consequence of the said direction of the Government, by Ext.P32 order dated 12.12.2011, the DPI regularised the appointments of the petitioners with effect from 01.06.2011. Aggrieved by the non-consideration of their appointments for the prior periods, the petitioners once again approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.9142/2012, which was disposed by Ext.P34, wherein this Court directed the Government to consider the revision petition preferred by the petitioner yet again on merits, without disturbing Ext.P28 order, by which their appointments had already been regularised with effect from 01.06.2011. In Ext.P38 order dated 23.10.2013, that was passed by the Government purportedly in compliance with the directions in Ext.P34 judgment, the appointment of the 1st petitioner was approved with effect from 01.06.2011, but in the case of the 2nd petitioner, it was held that the appointment with effect from 01.06.2011 also could not be approved, since there was no vacancy to which the 2nd petitioner could have been accommodated. In the writ petition, the petitioner primarily impugns Ext.P38 Government Order, to the extent it does not consider the approval to the appointment of the petitioners for the prior periods and further, to the extent it does not approve the appointment of the 2nd petitioner even from 01.06.2011. The earlier orders of rejection of approval are also impugned in the writ petition.