TEENA THOMAS VADAKKEPARAMBIL ERANHIMANGAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in this writ petition are as follows:

(2.) It is submitted by the petitioner that she was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in a retirement vacancy in the th respondent's school on 02.06.2005. Her appointment was not approved on the ground that protected teachers were not appointed in the school. It is submitted that the petitioner was shifted to a leave vacancy which arose from 01.10.2007 to 13.07.2012 and her appointment in the leave vacancy was approved from 01.10.2007 to 31.03.2008 on daily wages and from 02.06.2008 to 13.07.2012 on scale of pay. Later, on 30.07.2012, petitioner was appointed in regular vacancy and her appointment was approved.

(3.) The claim raised in this writ petition is with regard to approval of appointment of the petitioner as Upper Primary School Assistant with effect from 02.06.2005 in regular vacancy. The petitioner contends that the rejection of approval on the ground that no protected teachers had been appointed cannot hold good in view of the judgment of this Court in Nadeera vs. State of Kerala, 2011 3 KerLT 790 which was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala vs. Nadeera, 2013 2 KerLT 88. It is submitted that since no list of protected teachers had been made available by the Deputy Director of Education to the Manager of the school in question, the Manager was under no obligation to appoint a protected teacher. It is therefore contended that the petitioner is entitled to approval of appointment as UPSA with effect from 02.06.2005, the date of her appointment.