SUSEELA Vs. MANAGER SREENARAYANA DHARMASANGAM SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this original petition who was a part-time Language Teacher (Hindi) claims the post of full-time language teacher (Hindi) created by converting the part-time post into full time. THE question that arises for consideration is whether the full-time post created can be filled up by promoting the petitioner under R. 43 Chapter XIVA of the Kerala education R. 1959, for short the Rules, or will it go to the 5th respondent who is a qualified thrown-out full time language Teacher (Hindi) given protection as per G O. M S. 104/69/edn dated 6-3-1969. THE further question that arises for consideration is whether the transformation of a part-time teacher into a full-time teacher involves a promotion

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a part-time Language teacher (Hindi) in the Sivagiri High School in the year 1964. In the year 1972-73 the part-time post in which the petitioner was working was converted into full-time by the staff fixation order issued by the 2nd respondent-District Educational Officer. THEreupon, the 1st respondent-Manager promoted the petitioner as full-time Language Teacher (Hindi) and appointed her in the full-time post created. But the 2nd respondent by Ext. P1 order dated 10-10-1972 declined approval to the petitioner's appointment on the ground that the 5th respondent was the rightful claimant to the post. THE 5th respondent was a full-time Language Teacher (Hindi; in the A. V. High School, Kuruchi who was retrenched in the year 1966-67. Later, she was given protection as per G. O. MS. 104/69/ Edn. dated 6-3-1969 and posted in a Govt. School. In the year 1968 the management of the A. V. High School was taken over by the Corporate educational Agency namely, Sree Narayana Dharma Sangham Trust School, Sivagiri mutt. Against Ext. P1 the petitioner filed Ext. P3 appeal before the 3rd respondent-Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction. THE 1st respondent also filed Ext P4 appeal against Ext. P1 order. THE 2nd respondent dismissed ext. P4 appeal by Ext. P5 order. Against Ext P5 order of the 2nd respondent the petitioner filed Ext. P6 'appeal' to the Minister for Education. This was rejected by Ext. P7 order of the 4th respondent-State. In this original petition the petitioner challenges Exts. P1, P5, and P7 orders. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent.

(3.) MR. E. Subramoniam, learned counsel for the 5th respondents, contends that as the fact that the 5th respondent was a full-time language Teacher (Hindi) having protection under G. O. MS. 104/69/edn. dated 6 31969 is not denied in this case she should get the post in question in view of the above G. O itself. According to the learned counsel, the 5th respondent's continuance in the departmental school is only till a post for her absorption comes into existence in any of the schools under the Corporate Educational agency. Even if she had no protection, she can very well claim the post under r. 51a Chapter XIVA of the Rules. Learned counsel also contends that as the petitioner cannot be considered to be on the staff on 15 7 1972 when the full-time post came into existence, since it was by converting her part-time post into a full-time one, she cannot have any right to the post under R. 43 chapter XIVA of the Rules.