MALA K R Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who was working as HSA (Hindi) in the 4th respondent School on regular appointment from 2003 onwards, was retrenched from service due to division fall occurred in the staff fixation for the year 2007-08. She is aggrieved by Exts.P4 and P5 orders by which the salary drawn by her for the period from 15.07.2007 to 14.07.2008 was directed to be refunded.

(2.) In the revised staff fixation for the year 2007-08 made consequent to the inspection by the Super Check Cell, there was a reduction of one post of HSA (Hindi), when Ext.P2 order was issued by the Director of Public Instructions on 24.10.2008 under Rule 12E(3) r/w Rule 16 of Chapter XXIII of KER. By Ext.P2 order, the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur and the D.E.O., Chavakkad were directed to examine the eligibility of the teachers, if any, for protection, including application of 1:40 ratio, available to the affected teachers. 1 post of UPSA and 1 post of HSA were abolished with effect from 15.07.2007 consequent to fall in division. On the basis of Ext.P2, the DEO issued Ext.P3 order applying 1:40 ratio and retaining the excess UPSA as well as the petitioner, who was the 4th HSA in Hindi in the School for the year 2007-08. While retaining the petitioner in the 4th post of HSA (Hindi), the DEO retrenched the junior Hindi teacher Smt. M.C.Raji.

(3.) It is seen that Ext.P3 order issued on 27.02.2009 was challenged by the Junior Hindi teacher Smt.M.C.Raji and on the basis of direction from this Court in W.P.(C).No.21498 of 2011, the Government considered her revision petition and passed Ext.P6 order wherein it was found that retrenchment of Junior Hindi teacher was not justifiable in order to retain the 4th HSA in Hindi. It was stated that the ratio of 1:40 was to be applied only for avoiding retrenchment of a regular teacher and it was found unnecessary to retrench the Jr. Hindi teacher to accommodate the petitioner. In Ext.P6 the Government stated as follows: