ASHALATHA R Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant / petitioner was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA) in the school managed by the third respondent in the year 1992-93. The writ petitioner being a trained graduate with Mathematics as her main subject she was appointed by the Manager as High School Assistant (Maths) in a retirement vacancy with effect from 15.7.1994. The fourth respondent was appointed as HSA (Science) on 15.7.1972. The fifth respondent was appointed as early as on 3.6.1968 as HSA (Science) and later he was promoted as Headmaster. Both, respondents 4 and 5 retired from service in March 2002. Even though the writ petitioner was appointed as HSA (Maths) on 15.7.1994, approval of her appointment was declined by the educational authorities. Writ petitioner challenged non approval of her appointment, which resulted in Exhibit P5 judgment. In Exhibit P5 judgment, the learned single Judge directed the first respondent to pass fresh orders with regard to the right of the petitioner to get approval of her appointment at least from 1996-97 onwards. It was further observed by the learned single Judge in Exhibit P5 judgment at paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows:

(2.) The writ petition was filed challenging Exhibits P4 and P6 orders. The learned single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, noticed that no direction regarding the claim made by the petitioner prior to 1996 can be given, as in the earlier writ petition affected parties were not impleaded and therefore, the claim with respect to the year 1996-97 can only be considered. The learned single Judge further noticed that respondents 4 and 5 were working in the school much prior to the appointment of the petitioner even as a UPSA and they cannot be retrenched and an order can be passed appointing the petitioner as HSA, as it will create great injustice and the writ petition was dismissed.

(3.) In this writ appeal, it is argued that Exhibit P5 is an open remand order, though the affected parties were not made parties in the writ petition. While passing Exhibit P6 order, they were heard. The reason for not approving the appointment of the petitioner from 1994 onwards is that senior teachers were working in the school. It is also argued that while granting promotions or making appointments as HSA, the subject requirement has to be taken into consideration. Now, we will consider the Rules concerning to subject requirement.