ESTHER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the appellant's writ petition, O.P.No. 976 of 1987. The relevant facts may briefly be stated as follows: The appellant was appointed as a Hindi Language Full Time Teacher in the L.M.S. Upper Primary School from 7-9-1982 to 15-11-1982. The said appointment was duly approved by the educational authorities. She came to be relieved from the said post with effect from 15-11-1982 for want of vacancy. As there was thus approved service to her credit and her services came to be terminated for want of vacancy, she became a protected teacher entitled to the benefit of R.51A of Chap.14 A of the Kerala Education Rules, for short, the Rules When a vacancy of a Full Time Hindi Teacher occurred on the 16th August, 1984 she was duly appointed to that post in recognition of the rights she had earned as a protected teacher. So far as the 2nd respondent is concerned, he was appointed as a Hindi Language teacher when the school in question had not been upgraded as Upper Primary School but had only the status of a lower primary school between 1-9-1972 to 30-3-1973. The appointment was made by the Manager even though no post of a Hindi teacher was sanctioned in the said Lower Primary School. Hence the question of approving the said appointment by the educational authorities did not arise. Again the second respondent was appointed by the manager between 22-8-1973 and 30-10-1975 in the said school as Hindi language teacher. This appointment was also not against any sanctioned vacancy and the question of approving the said appointment did not arise. When such was the position, the 2nd respondent presented a petition on the 16th July, 1981 to the State Government to direct regularisation of his appointment as Hindi Language teacher, having regard to the fact that he had worked as Hindi language teacher on the strength of the appointment made by the manager during the two periods referred to above. The said representation was considered by the Govt. and an order, now produced by the Government as Ext. R(1)(a) bearing No. G.O (Rt)No. 4056/83/G.Edn. dated 28-11-1983, was passed. The Government felt that if the appointment of the 2nd respondent is approved, he could claim protection under R.51-A of the Rules for appointment as Hindi Language Teacher in the L.M.S. U.P. School. The Government order, Ext. R(1)(a) reads thus:

(2.) It is in this background that the appellant approach this court for appropriate relief for quashing Ext. R(1)(a) and Ext. P1 and for consequential directions. The impugned order was produced for the first time in this appeal as Ext. R(1)(a) by the Government. But the appellant had prayed for calling for the records and for quashing the said order of the Government dated 28-11-1983. The learned single Judge taking into consideration the service of the 2nd respondent from 1-9-1972 to 30-3-1973 and from 22-8-1973 to 30-10-1975 held that his service is longer than the service of the appellant and the 3rd respondent and that therefore the Government was justified in making the order Ext. P1 directing that in the two vacancies occurring on 31-7-1984 and 16-8-1984 the 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent should be accommodated displacing the appellant.

(3.) In this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge, the Government Pleader produced the order of the State Government dated 28-11-1983 bearing G. O. Rt. 4056/83/G. Ed as Ext. R1(a). The appellant also has produced a copy of the said order along with her affidavit. The reason for the appellant not to produce a copy of the said order in the writ petition is that it was not served on the appellant. The appellant came to know that such an order has been passed only when reliance was placed on the same in Ext. P1. The order of the State Government Ext. P1 cannot be faulted if the order Ext. R(1)(a) is legal and valid. The appellant has prayed for quashing the said order in the writ petition, though a copy of the said order was not produced along with the writ petition. We will not therefore be justified in not examining the contentions of the appellant regarding the validity of the order Ext. R(1)(a).