P K SAJILATHA Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER IRINHALAKUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are working as HSAs in H.D.P.High School, Edathirinji, an aided High School governed by the Kerala Education Rules, are aggrieved by the denial of salary to them on account of an objection raised by the Accountant General.

(2.) The 1st petitioner was initially appointed as a UPSA in the 3rd respondent's school on 6.1997. While working there with approval, a vacancy of HSA (Hindi) arose in the School, on retirement of one Smt.Valsala, the regular incumbent in the post of HSA (Hindi), on 31.3.2008. The 1st petitioner was appointed against that vacancy as per Ext.P1 order w.e.f 6.2008 by promotion. Her appointment was approved as per endorsement in Ext.P1 dated 16.10.2008 of the DEO, Irinjalakuda. The 2nd petitioner was initially appointed as UPSA in the 2nd respondent's school for the period from 6.6.1994 to 09.08.1994 which was already approved. It is stated that she had been working as UPSA from 1995 onwards and while working so, she got appointment as HSA on 1.6.09. Her appointment as per Ext.P2 order as HSA (Physical Science) from 1.6.09 was approved as per endorsement dated 7.10.2009 in Ext.P2 order of the DEO, Irinjalakuda. While continuing so, the District Education Officer informed the Manager as well as the Headmistress that the Accountant General has raised certain objections against the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioners and therefore their salary shall be withheld pending rectification of the objections raised against it. In the report produced along with the letter dated 20.11.2012 of the District Education Officer, the extract of the objections raised in the audit was furnished. As per this report it was stated that the vacancies in newly opened schools are to be filled up by appointing protected teachers as per G.O(P).No.178/02/G.Edn. dated 28.6.2002 and as per G.O(P).No.46/06/G.Edn. dated 1.2006, at least one protected teacher ought to have been appointed in the school. Therefore, it was stated that the vacancy arose when the protected teacher was relieved to join the parent school shall be filled up by appointing a protected teacher, in case there are no claimants under Rule 43/51A. It was further stated that in the 2nd respondent's school which was opened in the year 1979, no protected teacher was appointed.

(3.) However, appointments were seen approved by the DEO in violation of the Government orders. In the case of the petitioners it was stated that their approvals were not in order. Ext.P3 letter was issued in the light of the aforesaid audit objections. The Manager, on receipt of the audit objection, submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 12.12.2012 before the DEO in which it was stated that one Smt.K.K.Rosily, HSA (Malayalam), who is a protected teacher, was already appointed in the school. However, since she got absorption in the parent school itself, she was relieved. The Manager stated that the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur did not provide any list of protected teachers subsequent to that. It was also pointed out that in the absence of a list from the Deputy Director of Education the Manager cannot be accused for not appointing a protected teacher in the school. Therefore, it was requested to take steps as per letter dt.11.11.2005 and 15.2.2006 respectively to release the salary of the petitioners. However, no action was taken thereafter. The petitioners approached this Court at that stage.