SMT. KELOTHU VALAPPIL KUNHATHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as High School Assistant (Natural Science) in St.Antony's Higher Secondary School, Valiathura, Thiruvananthapuram against the leave without allowance vacancy of Smt. Mary Hilda, H.S.A., with effect from 01.04.2002 to 31.3.2007. The appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer, Thiruvananthapuram. Mary Hilda again extended the leave without allowance for a further period of five years from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2012. It is to be noted that the Manager had not made a formal appointment of the petitioner or sought an extension for that period for approving the petitioner. However, taking note of the fact that the extension of leave was granted to Mary Hilda, the petitioner's appointment was approved upto 31.3.2012 till the date on which the leave of Mary Hilda would expire.

(2.) On the expiry of the leave of Mary Hilda on 31.3.2012, she had not joined duty. Instead she resigned from the service on 14.6.2012. Taking note of the fact that there was no extension of the leave for Mary Hilda, the District Educational Officer refused to approve the continuation of the petitioner from 01.04.2012 to 13.06.2012. The petitioner, thereafter, was reappointed in the substantial vacancy with effect from 14.06.2012 and the petitioner got approval. The question is only regarding the break in service from 01.04.2012 to 13.06.2012. It is to be noted that there is a substantial vacancy. The only question is that since there was no application on the side of Mary Hilda for extension of leave, the Manager appears not to have made any proposal for approving the petitioner from 01.04.2012 to 13.06.2012. There cannot be a denial as to the fact that there exists a vacancy for the simple reason that from the date on which Mary Hilda resigned, the petitioner was appointed in that vacancy and which was approved later. The interregnum period for all the practical purposes should be treated as if the petitioner was in the service except for the salary. The continuation of the petitioner in the service could not be said irregular as she had approved service in the leave vacancy of Mary Hilda, who had chosen to resign from service with effect from 14.06.2012. The problem is centered around this date of resignation.

(3.) Taking note of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Manager shall make an application for approving the appointment of the petitioner from 01.04.2012 to 13.06.2012 in the leave vacancy of Mary Hilda. On such application being made, that shall be approved. However, the petitioner cannot be given salary for that period in the absence of Mary Hilda in the party array. This is only for notional service benefits and continuity in the service and not for any other purposes. The Manager shall make such application before the third respondent within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the third respondent shall approve the appointment in the light of the observations as above. The writ petition is disposed of as above.