DILLEP Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 as well as Advocate P.Gopal appearing for the 5th respondent.

(2.) The issue raised in this writ petition is with regard to the petitioner's right for inclusion in the Teachers Bank. The petitioner had been appointed as High School Assistant (Malayalam) in the 5th respondent's school on 1.6.1999. The appointment was duly approved. He was retrenched on 9.12002 with effect from 15.7.2002 due to reduction of one post of HSA (Malayalam). The petitioner submits that his name should have been included in the Teachers Bank as provided in Government order dated 1.10.2011, since teachers retrenched for want of posts from 1997 to 2010 are entitled for such inclusion. The petitioner had preferred representations seeking such inclusion. By Exhibit P4 order, his request was rejected by the Deputy Director of Education. The petitioner took up the matter before the Government. However, Exhibit P6 reply was given stating that the petitioner's case would be considered as and when seniority list of claimants is prepared in accordance with the educational package. The petitioner contends that the benefit of inclusion in the Teachers Bank had been granted to similarly situated persons on the strength of the judgment of this Court. He produces Exhibit P7 order in support of the said contention. The petitioner also claims that a representation has been preferred before the Government as Exhibit P8 and seeks directions to the Government to consider the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on several decisions of this Court including that of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Vasantha Vs. State of Kerala [2009(1) KLT 1008].

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, contending that the petitioner had short broken spells of provisional service in the school during the academic year 1997-1998. Thereafter, he was appointed against a regular vacancy on 1.6.1999 and was thrown out of service in the academic year 2002-2003 on account of reduction in student strength. It is stated that the teacher had thereafter taken up other employment and the Manager had reported that the petitioner had relinquished his claim for reappointment under proper attestation by the District Educational Officer and therefore the petitioner's name was not recommended for inclusion in the list of retrenched teachers. It is further submitted that no fresh post of HSA (Malayalam) had arisen in the school and the question of Rule 51A claim also has not arisen.