NAICYMOL C.S. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals concern the claims with reference to one Naicymol. She was the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5791 of 2016. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext. P8 order dated 29.1.2016 by which the Government held that Smt. Smitha A.R. ought to have been appointed as HSA (English), though the Manager initially appointed the petitioner in that capacity. One of the contentions urged was that earlier the Government by Ext. P3 order dated 7.12.2011 had rejected a revision petition filed by Smt. Smitha A.R., thereby her request for retaining her as HSA (Maths) against the post of HSA (English) was rejected. When the matter was challenged before this Court, the parties agreed that a representation was filed by Smt. Smitha before the Government and direction was issued to the Government to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, pursuant to which, the impugned order came to be passed. One of the contentions raised was that a second review was not maintainable. The learned single Judge, however, took note of the fact that the Government was directed to consider the rival claims based on an admission between the parties and therefore there was no reason to set aside the said order for that reason. However, while considering the rival claims, the challenge to Ext. P8 order was negatived and it was held at paragraph No. 6 as under;

(2.) Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment suffers from illegality, after hearing the learned counsel on either sides, we do not think that the judgment requires to be reviewed in any fashion. It is clear from the factual circumstances involved in the case that there were more teachers working in HSA (Maths) and HSA (Social Science) during 2010-11 staff fixation, whereas only one teacher was working as HSA (English). The petitioner was working as HSA (Social Science), whereas Smt. Smitha was working as HSA (Maths). In so far as Smt. Smitha was senior, she should have been deployed as HSA (English) when there was redeployment to HSA (English). Whereas, initially the petitioner was deployed as HSA (English). Taking into account the fact that Smt. Smitha was senior, the findings in Ext. P8 as well as by the learned single Judge are therefore justified. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said judgment. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(3.) This writ appeal has been filed challenging the order in W.P.(C) No. 7510 of 2016, in which, a direction had been issued by the learned single Judge in the common order to implement Ext. P8. We have already upheld Ext. P8 order. Under such circumstances, this writ appeal does not survive and hence, it is dismissed.