P.C. SUPRIYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a High School Assistant (HSA for short) in Mathematics, who was rendered surplus in the staff fixation for the years 2006 -07 and 2007 -08 and had to face reversion as Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA for short). Her request for retention as HSA was rejected by the Government as per Ext.P18.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as UPSA in Sree Vivekananda High School which is an aided school, as per Ext.P1 order with effect from 5.6.1995. She was promoted as HSA (Mathematics) in a regular vacancy with effect from 5.6.2000. In Ext.P6 staff fixation for the year 2006 -2007 there occurred a division fall in the school. The 12th division was sanctioned applying the ratio of 1:40. Accordingly the petitioner who was rendered surplus on account of the division fall was retained in the school, as evident from the appendix to the staff fixation proceedings. Thereafter in the staff fixation for the year 2007 -08 also there occurred division fall reducing the admissible posts to ten. The petitioner who had originally worked as UPSA and was promoted as HSA on promotion, was thereupon ordered to be reverted. The Manager filed an appeal against the staff fixation. That appeal was rejected as per Ext.P8 order dated 8.2.2008 by the Deputy Director of Education on the grounds: Smt.P.S.Geetha Devi Senior HSA (Mathematics) had been deployed; as per subject ratio it was not possible to retain HSA (Social Studies) and the petitioner was not eligible for protection and for promotion from the cadre of UPSA; therefore, she had to be reverted for want of vacancy. It was stated that 1:40 ratio can be applied only for accommodating teachers facing retrenchment and not for facing reversion.

(3.) A revision petition was filed before the Director of Public Instruction. When that revision petition was pending, the Deputy Director of Education issued a show cause notice Ext.P10 to the Manager directing him to show cause why the petitioner's retention as HSA in the ratio of 1:40 should not be cancelled from 15.7.2008. It was stated that the petitioner was not entitled to be retained applying the ratio of 1:40, since she was liable to be reverted as UPSA. The Deputy Director of Education thereafter passed Ext.P13 order, wherein it was held that the petitioner's retention during 2006 -07 applying 1:40 ratio was against G.O. (MS)/148/98/G.Edn. dated 8.5.1998, G.O.(Ms)/125/01/G.Edn dated 2.4.2001, G.O.(Ms)/11/02/G.Edn. dated 7.1.2002, G.O.(P)