RAMYA ANTONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue raised herein is with regard to appointment and approval as HSST (Hindi) under the Corporate Educational agency. The parties and documents are being referred to as in W.P.(C).No.1067/2017, unless specifically mentioned.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.1067 of 2017 (5th respondent in W.P.(C).No.18038 of 2017) is that the petitioner was appointed as HSST (Hindi) under the 4th respondent Corporate Educational Agency against an existing leave vacancy for the period from 9.7.2010 to 23.7.2015. A selection was made by the Statutory Selection Committee and the petitioner was placed at Rank No.1 in the select list. The petitioner's appointment against the leave vacancy was approved by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P4. The 5th respondent, who was the 2nd rank holder was appointed against an anticipated vacancy. The appointment of the 5th respondent was approved only with effect from 14.8.2013 on sanction being accorded for the additional post on 15.7.2013. The leave vacancy against which the petitioner was appointed was terminated with effect from 4.6.2015 and consequently the 5th respondent, who was the junior most hand in the category of HSST (Hindi) was retrenched by the Manager and the petitioner was retained at St.George HSS, Vazhathoppe. However, the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner was rejected by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P11 and the same has been upheld by the 2nd respondent in appeal as per Exhibit P16. Exhibits P11 and P16 orders are under challenge.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Vijayan v. Deputy Director [1998 (2) KLT 413 FB] to contend that where there is a reduction of post, retrenchment should be on the principle of 'last come, first go' and the said principle is equally applicable in the case of posts in Higher Secondary Schools. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988) 4 SCC 534], it is contended that when a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point must plead and prove such facts in evidence.