ANILKUMAR Vs. BEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUESTION that has come up for consideration in this case is whether a qualified Upper Primary School Assistant (Science) retrenched from service for want of vacancy could claim the benefit of rule 51a of Chapter xiv-A of the Kerala Education Rules for appointment in the post of a language teacher i. e. U. P. S. A. (Hindi) Learned single judge accepted the plea on the ground that the post of UPS A (Science) and the language teacher (UPSA-Hindi)carried the same scale of pay, in the same cadre, and included in the same seniority list. Appellant, aggrieved by the said finding, has come up in appeal.

(2.) WE refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the writ Petition. Petitioner was appointed as UPSA (Science) in the St. Mary's U. P. School on 15. 7. 1992. Her appointment was approved and later she was retrenched from the school for want of vacancy during 1995-96 staff fixation. She was again appointed in a leave vacancy as UPSA (Science) from 12. 9. 1995 to 13. 12. 1995, from 6. 1. 1997 to 26. 3. 1997 and from 4. 6. 1997 to 1. 9. 1997. All the appointments were approved. Accordingly petitioner acquired a right under Rule 51a of chapter XIV-A of the K. E. R. for future appointment in the school. Petitioner, after being retrenched from the service for want of vacancy, passed Rashtra Bhash visharad Degree Examination of Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachara Sabha in August, 1998. She therefore became fully qualified for getting appointment to the post of language teacher ie. U. P. S. A. (Hindi ). A retirement vacancy of a language teacher in Hindi arose in the school from 1. 6. 1999.

(3.) COUNSEL for the addl. fourth respondent (appellant)Sri. T. M. Abdul Latiff submitted that petitioner has no claim for appointment to the post of UPSA (Hindi), since she never held the post of a language teacher. According to counsel, she can claim appointment only to the post of upsa (Science) and not as a language teacher, since there is no identity of post.