SABI AUGUSTINE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P7 Government Order, whereby re- fixation of salary is directed to be made and to take action to recover the excess amount of salary paid to the petitioner. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST) (Political Science) under the 4th respondent Management on 01.09.2000. The above appointment was a subject matter of litigation before this Court at the instance of one Joseph Abraham, H.S.A., who was claiming promotion from the post of H.S.A (Social Science) to the post of HSST. In terms of the direction issued by this Court and in terms of the Government Order, petitioner's appointment was approved as HSST (Junior) with effect from 01.09.2000 and the post was upgraded as HSST with effect from 17.07.2001.

(3.) The approval granted to the petitioner was also a subject matter of litigation before this Court, i.e., W.P.(C) No.33243 of 2003, and this Court, on the ground that the selection was not conducted in accordance with law, quashed the approval of appointment of the petitioner, with a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the resultant vacancy of H.S.A. The Government considered the issue and consequential orders were issued appointing Sri. Joseph Abraham as HSST on 25.06.2007 and appointed the petitioner to the resultant vacancy. Even though a writ appeal was preferred by the petitioner, that was dismissed and the petitioner has taken up the matter before the Supreme Court in S.L.P (C) No.11797 of 2007 and as per an interim order dated 08.04.2009, on the basis of submission made by the 2nd respondent therein, directed to explore the possibility of creating one more post of HSST in order to accommodate the petitioner without displacing Sri. Joseph Abraham. Thereafter, the S.L.P was disposed of by the apex court recording the changed circumstances and holding that the correctness of the judgment has not been examined as the petition itself became infructuous, and directed to pay salary to the petitioner to the period in which petitioner had worked as H.S.A from 12.03.2008 to 31.05.2011.