ANUJA GILBERT Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are all appointed as per Ext.P1 series of orders as Lower Primary School Assistants. When the manager sought approval, it was declined by Ext.P2 series of orders and later the said orders were affirmed as per Ext.P9 series of orders passed by the State Government in revision filed by the petitioners. It is basically challenging Ext.P9 series of order, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) Ext.P9 series of orders passed by the Government are almost typical in nature. The Government has found that the post in which the petitioner was appointed is a shift abolished one as such protected teacher has to be appointed. Moreover the package order No. GO(P) 199/11/G.Edn. and GO(P) 213/15/G.Edn. were stayed by this Court. Hence the petitioners request for approval was rejected. The paramount contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is basically relying upon Ext.P6 Government Order dated 25.10.2011 bearing No.60930/J2/11/G.Edn., wherein the Government has stated that to consider the issues raised consequent to the abolition of shift Government would require a list of such schools and the number of vacancies and it was clarified that fresh appointments in such cases will not be allowed from the date of the Government Order. According to the petitioner, the list of the uneconomical schools have not been drawn by the Government so far and moreover the teachers package was interfered with by this Court and the same was quashed. It is also pointed out that, eventhough a subsequent teacher's package order was issued by the Government, the same was also interfered with by this Court.

(3.) The sum and substance of the contention put forth by the petitioner is that, none of the relevant aspects were taken into account by the State Government while passing Ext.P9 orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited my attention to a judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.39880/2016 dated 12.02.2019 and submitted that under typical circumstances this Court has interfered and necessary reliefs were granted to the petitioner therein. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that since none of these aspects were taken into account by the Government while the impugned orders are passed, the same suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and illegality susceptible to be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.