FRANCIS READING ASSOCIATION Vs. ANIT K.VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arises from the judgment dated 27.9.2016 in W.P.(C).No.30396/2014. The State and its Authorities have filed W.A.No.2001/2017 and third parties, 1 st appellant an Association represented by its Secretary and 2 nd appellant claiming to be the Manager of the School under the Association, with leave of Court has preferred W.A.No.2418/2016.

(2.) The writ petition was filed by Anit K. Varghese. She was appointed a UPSA in the School managed by the Corporate Manager, St. Francis School, Mattom. The appointment was made in an additional division vacancy anticipated in the academic year 2010-11. The appointment was with effect from 1.6.2010. The Educational Authorities did not approve the said appointment specifically on three grounds. One is that there was a Rule 51 B claimant, whose claim had to be considered. Secondly, it is stated that there was senior appointees to the petitioner whose appointment has to be approved and third is that the Management did not execute a bond as required in G.O.10/2010 dated 12.01.2010.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader would submit that, though there was no post for appointing the petitioner on 1.6.2010, it is an admitted fact that the said post had been created by orders issued in the year 2014. Once the post has been created which was an additional division vacancy during the academic year 2010-11, it relates back to the date of appointment itself, in which event, at this point of time it cannot be stated that there was no post as such. In fact, the appointment was regular taking into account the subsequent creation of the said post. The only question is, whether there is any infirmity in not appointing Rule 51 B claimant. Even according to the Department, Rule 51 B claimant has submitted application only on 4.12.2010, i.e., after the date when the appointment had been made in respect of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge also observed that the senior appointees got appointed in the shifted vacancy with effect from 1.6.2010. Further it is settled law that mere non execution of bond will not prevent the Government from enforcing the requirement of appointing protected teachers in subsequent vacancies arising in the school.