SALEENA KAKKATTUCHALI Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayers in this writ petition are as follows:-

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on 8.6.2002 as Full Time Arabic teacher in the 4th respondent's school. The petitioner's appointment was approved by Exhibit P5 proceedings dated 25.02011. The approval was for a period from 28.07.2003 to 4.11.2007. The petitioner had applied for maternity leave for a period from 15.10.2007 to 4.11.2007 prefixing the period of Ramzan holidays from 13.9.2007. The vacancy in which the petitioner was appointed did not terminate on 4.11.2007, since the teacher who had applied for leave without allowance did not return. The 4th respondent appointed a protected teacher from another school in the vacancy from 5.11.2007. Later, the maternity leave applied for by the petitioner was rejected.

(3.) It was only thereafter that Exhibit P5 order of approval of the petitioner's appointment was issued. The petitioner filed Exhibit P10 request for appointment in the vacancy of Full Time Arabic teacher in the school in terms of Rule 51A immediately on approval of her appointment. This was rejected by Exhibit P11 on the ground that the protected teacher was continuing against the said vacancy. The petitioner preferred a revision against the said order which has also been rejected by Exhibit P14. The reasons stated for rejection of the petitioner's claim is that the petitioner cannot be considered as a Rule 51A claimant. It is stated that the petitioner's application for maternity leave could not be granted due to Note 4 in Rule 100 of Part 1 Kerala Service Rules, which provides that maternity leave shall be granted only if the employee continues in service after the period of leave. In the instant case, the approval of appointment was only till 4.11.2007 and the leave applied for was also till the same date. Therefore, the petitioner's request for maternity leave could not be allowed. It is, therefore, stated that the petitioner would be reckoned as having abandoned service from 19.2007 and would not be a Rule 51A claimant.