BEENA MARIAM GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as an Upper Primary School Assistant by the 5th respondent in his school. The above appointment was approved was approved as per Ext. P1 form 2.1.1989. Later by Ext. P2 order the petitioner was appointed as H.S. A., for the period from 28.6.90 to 31.8.1990. The above appointment was also approved as per Ext. P2. The petitioner was again appointed as H.S.A. from 2.1.1995 to 30.3.1995. The above appointment was also approved as per Ext. P3.

(2.) The 6th respondent was appointed as an Upper Primary School Assistant on 5.6.1995. At that time, she was working as a Clerk in the School. The above appointment of the 6th respondent as UPSA was approved. Thereafter the 5th respondent promoted the 6th respondent as H.S.A. in the leave vacancy on 10.7.1995. The above appointment was not approved by the 4th respondent as per Ext. P4. Against Ext. P4 the 5th respondent manager filed an appeal before the third respondent. The third respondent by Ext. P5 rejected the appeal upholding the petitioner's statutory claim for promotion as H.S.A. over the 6th respondent.

(3.) The 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit the 6th respondent has stated the details of her previous service. She was first appointed as H.S.A, on 7.8.78 and continued till 7.10.78. Thereafter she was appointed as UPSA from 6.6.79 to 14.7.80, from 15.7.80 to 22.8.80 and from 13.6.84 to 13.8.84. On 28.4.82 she was appointed as a Clerk for 4 months. Again she was appointed as a Clerk on 1.12.87, in which post she continued till 4.6.1995 when she was appointed as a UPSA. According to the petitioner, therefore, she had every right to claim the appointment in the vacancy to which the petitioner was appointed on 1.11.1989 as UPSA. The counter affidavit reveals the fact that the 6th respondent filed a petition against the appointment of the petitioner which took place as early as in 1989, only on 5.2.96. The above representation was rejected by the 4th respondent by Ext. R6(a). Thereafter what the 5th respondent did was to forward the representation of the 6th respondent which was rejected, with a covering letter to respondents 1 and 2. It must be noted that the 6th respondent did not take up the matter before any higher authorities. The counter affidavit further reveals that the 6th respondent went abroad in 1985 and remained there till 1987. According to her, when a vacancy arose in November 1986, she could not come back to join duty. But it was not averred whether the petitioner was offered any appointment in the above post. According to the 6th respondent, while considering the question of approval of her appointment, necessarily the legality of the initial appointment of the petitioner also had to be considered. According to the 6th respondent she has got a strong claim both under R.43 and 51 - A of Chapter XIV A of the KER .