BINI KRISHNAN Vs. SVETLANA.D.BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is in appeal against an interim order dated 25.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.12489 of 2017 modifying an earlier interim order. Initially, as per an interim order dated 07.04.2017, a stay of the impugned order exhibit P9 was granted. The said order has been modified on condition that the Government shall recover the entire amount being paid to the first respondent from the Manager of the School, after taking action in terms of the direction in exhibit P9.

(2.) The dispute in this case concerns the appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST for short) of the second respondent school. The appellant was working in the said school as a High School Assistant (HSA). While so, a vacancy of HSST (History) arose on 01.06.2010. The Manager appointed the first respondent by Direct Recruitment. The appellant claimed that she ought to have been appointed to the said post, under the 25% quota reserved for appointment of qualified HSAs working in the school following the 'By Transfer' method. The appointment of the first respondent was rejected. The dispute gave rise to filing of W.P.(C) No.30729 of 2011 by the appellant. The said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the representation filed by the appellant and to take appropriate action thereon. Accordingly, exhibit P2 order was passed. Exhibit P2 order was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in Writ Petitions filed by the appellant, the Manager as well as the first respondent. All the three Writ Petitions were disposed of by exhibit P4 judgment of the learned Single Judge. As per exhibit P4 judgment, the appellant was found to be entitled to the appointment claimed. The said judgment was the subject matter of challenge in W.A.Nos.369, 400,417,459,462 and 466 of 2016 at the instance of the Manager as well as the aggrieved teacher, the first respondent. By exhibit P6 judgment, this Court disposed of all the Writ Petitions confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The aggrieved first respondent approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP Nos.20374-20379/2016 which were dismissed by exhibit P7 judgment. However, the Supreme Court observed that the first respondent if so advised, could approach the appropriate Forum claiming her salary. Accordingly, she submitted a representation claiming salary for the period during which she had worked. Since no orders were passed on the said representations, she approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition. As per exhibit P8 judgment, this Court directed the representation of the first respondent to be considered. Accordingly, the Government considered the same after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant also and passed an order, exhibit P9.

(3.) As per exhibit P9, the third respondent was directed to approve the appointment of the first respondent on daily wage basis and to release her salary treating the same as a special case on humanitarian grounds and the Director of Higher Secondary Education was directed to initiate action against the Manager as per Rule 7(1), Chapter III of Kerala Educational Rules (KER for short) for violating the Rules. WP(C) No.12489 of 2017 was filed by the appellant herein aggrieved by exhibit P9. It is contended that, the Government ought to have directed the Manager to pay the salary of the first respondent instead of directing the same to be paid from the State Exchequer. As already noticed above, initially though an interim order of stay of exhibit P9 was granted by the learned Single Judge, the said order has been modified by the order appealed against.