SAJNA. M. Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issues raised in this writ petition are squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of this Court in Ciji P. Jose v. State of Kerala 2012 (1) KLT 867 . The learned Government Pleader also agrees that this judgment covers all the issues in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner, as the pleadings would show, was appointed as LPSA in a leave vacancy in the A.J.B.S.Eravakkad by the 5th respondent - Manager, as per order dated 03.02.1999. This appointment was approved by the 4th respondent - AEO with effect from 03.02.1999. Thereafter, she was reappointed as LPSA in another leave vacancy with effect from 01.06.1999, which was also approved as per Ext.P1 order. However, after the leave vacancy terminated, she was retrenched from service and she was reappointed as LPSA in another leave vacancy from 03.10.2001 to 14.02.2002 through Ext.P2 order, which was also approved. The petitioner says that she was thereafter reappointed in a regular vacancy with effect from 04.06.2007 but which appointment was not approved by the 4th respondent. It appears that the petitioner challenged this by filing a revision and the second respondent - Director of Public Instruction allowed it and directed the 4th respondent to approve the appointment with effect from 04.06.2007, a copy of which order has been appended to this writ petition as Ext.P3. The petitioner says that while she was continuing as LPSA with effect from 04.06.2007, the said post was abolished in the staff fixation order for the academic year 2008-09 and she was thrown out of service.

(3.) On the basis of the above narration of facts, the petitioner claims rights under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of the KER and she says that she is entitled for reappointment. According to her, when another leave vacancy in the post of LPSA arose in the school with effect from 01.06.2009, she was appointed through Ext.P4 by the Manager, which was approved by the 4th respondent - AEO through Ext.P5. As per her, while she was continuing on the basis of Ext.P4 appointment order and Ext.P5 approval, the second respondent - DPI issued an order, dated 19.04.2010, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P6, which, according to the petitioner, was issued without hearing her. A reading of Ext.P6 order would show that it relies on another Government Order, dated 12.10.2006, a copy of which is available on record as Ext.P7. In Ext.P7 order, the Government had directed that all vacancies in uneconomic schools are to be filled up by protected teachers alone and on such basis, the service of the petitioner was sought to be terminated, through Ext.P6 order. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition praying that Exts.P6 and P7 be quashed and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay her salary with effect from 01.10.2009 with arrears after declaring that her appointment as LPSA made through Ext.P4 order is legal and valid.