UMA M Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who had been appointed for cooking noon meals in GLP School, Paramba by the noon meal committee as per Exts.P1 and P2 orders challenges Ext.P8 notification issued on 02.11.2018 inviting applications for appointment as a Cook for preparation of noon meal in the School.

(2.) According to petitioner, Smt. C.K. Sarojini was the regular incumbent appointed for preparing noon meals in the GLP School. Because of kidney ailments, she was laid up and in her absence the Noon Meal Committee appointed the petitioner as per Ext.P2 resolution dated 07.10.2013 and thereafter as per Ext.P1 resolution dated 19.10.2016. According to her, she is residing very near to the School in the very same Panchayat. Smt. Sarojini passed away on 06.04.2017. She was appointed as Cook on the basis of a selection conducted on 30.03.2017. It is her further case that that based on Ext.P3 order issued by the Deputy Director of Education-the 3rd respondent on 03.06.2017, the 6th respondent was inducted in her place and she is not replaced even after this Court as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 01.10.2018, dismissed her writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to allow her to continue in service and petitioner had forwarded the judgments to the respondents 1 to 5. It is stated that the Noon Meal Committee had taken the stand that they had appointed the petitioner as Cook. Without accommodating the petitioner, in tune with Ext.P5 judgment, the 4th respondent-the Headmaster issued Ext.P8 notice inviting application for fresh selection. Petitioner challenges the same, stating that the same is in violation of Ext.P5 judgment and that a fresh selection is not necessary when the Noon meal committee had selected and appointed her. It is also her case that this Court has already found that the appointment of 6th respondent was without authority. It is her further case that the 6th respondent is residing in another Panchayath and her only claim is that her mother was working in the post.

(3.) This writ petition was filed immediately on coming to know about Ext.P8 notice. When the matter came up for consideration on 07.11.2018, this Court stayed the operation and implementation of all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8. However, it is seen that respondents proceeded with the selection and petitioner also participated in the same.