RAFIA K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as HSA (Social Science) in the 5th respondent's School as per Ext. P1 order dated 2.6.2008 in the additional post created for the year 2006-2007. This appointment was approved as per endorsement dated 26.12.2011 in Ext. P1 with effect from 1.6.2011 in tune with Circular No. H2/35920/11/DPI dated 13.12.2011 of the Director of Public Instructions. Aggrieved by the denial of approval with effect from the initial date of appointment, namely 2.6.2008, the petitioner has moved the Government with revision petition. That revision petition was rejected. This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the respondents to approve her appointment with effect from 2.6.2008.

(2.) The 4th respondent denied the approval to the appointment of petitioner as per Ext. P2 order saying that all the vacancies in the School should have been filled up by appointing protected teachers, as per G.O. (P). No. 178/02/G. Edn dated 28.06.2002 and also that there was a ban on appointments, ordered by Government on 17.08.20015. Ext. P2 was affirmed in Ext. P3 order of 3rd respondent. Thereafter Government issued G.O. (P). No. 10/10/G. Edn dated 12.01.2010 lifting the ban on appointments on condition that the Managers have to execute a bond agreeing to fill up equal number of vacancies by appointing protected teachers. But the Manager did not execute any bond. While so, Government introduced Teachers' package as per G.O. (P) No. 110/2011/G. Edn dated 01.10.2011 and based on that petitioner's appointment was approved w.e.f. 01.06.2011. Thereafter, petitioner moved Government with a revision petition for approval from 02.06.2008 onwards, pointing out that the Manager had already appointed two protected teachers as per Exts. P10 and P11 orders dated 19.10.2004. Government found that a common decision was required on the question of the service rendered by the teachers prior to 01.06.2011 and her case can be considered as and when such a decision is taken. Therefore, the revision petition was disposed of reserving her right to approach again as and when a decision is taken by Government on the service rendered by teachers like her prior to 01.06.2011. The writ petition is filed pointing out that approval is granted to several teachers from the date of their initial appointment despite the ban.

(3.) The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that approval was denied not only because it was made contrary to the ban on appointment in additional vacancy but also because of the Government Order-G. O. (P). No. 178/02/G. Edn dated 28.06.2002, directing that vacancies in newly opened Schools shall be filled up by protected teachers. Approval from 01.06.2011 was granted under teachers' package.