The petitioner, a school assistant, challenged the rejection of her appointment approval. The court held that a prior Government order mandated approval of her appointment and refusal to act was incorrect.
The respondent AEO directed to pass orders approving the petitioner's appointment as U.P.S.A. from 04.08.2003 to 28.11.2003 within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/10TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 6901 of 2012 (K)
PETITIONER(S):
MARY SINDHU A.S., UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, IIV UP SCHOOL, MALIPPURAM, RESIDING AT ATTIPETTY HOUSE, PUTHUVYPPU - 682 508.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.S.SIDHAN SRI.V.K.RAJANANDAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETRAY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFIER, VYPIN-682 508.
4. THE MANAGER, IIV UP SCHOOL, MALIPPURAM-682 509.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 6901 of 2012 (K)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE APPIONTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P8-TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 02/12/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
------------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
W.P.(C) No.6901 of 2012
Dated this the 1st day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims approval for her appointment
as U.P.S.A. for the period from 04.08.2003 to 28.11.2003. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed against a leave vacancy of U.P.S.A. which arose in the 4th respondent school. Petitioner was a Rule 51-A claimant. On the ground that the claim of a senior Rule 51-A claimant Smt.K.C.Regi has not been approved, the approval of appointment of the petitioner was also rejected. By Ext.P6 order issued on revision petitions preferred by the petitioner as well as the senior claimant, it was held that there were two vacancies of U.P.S.A. to accommodate Smt.K.C.Regi as well as the petitioner and therefore the petitioner's appointment was also in order. The appointment of Smt.K.C.Regi was also approved by Ext.P7 proceedings dated 12.10.2011. However, the petitioner's
W.P.(C) No.6901 of 2012 -2-
appointment as U.P.S.A. from 04.08.2003 to 28.11.2003 remains unapproved.
W.P.(C) No.6901 of 2012 -3-
effect to such orders on the ground that he had already passed orders earlier, rejecting the claim. The understanding of the AEO that passing consequential orders on the basis of Ext.P6 would amount to review of earlier orders is strange to say the least.
In the above view of the matter, there shall be a direction to the third respondent AEO to pass orders approving the appointment of the petitioner as U.P.S.A. from 04.08.2003 to 28.11.2003. Orders shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an Assistant Educational Officer is duty-bound to grant approval to a petitioner's appointment when a Government order directed rectification of appointments.
Whether complying with a Government order approving a retired teacher's appointment amounts to a review of the AEO's earlier orders rejecting such claims.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant for the leave vacancy.
Mary Sindhu A.S.
State of Kerala
Director of Public Instructions
Assistant Educational Officer
The Manager, IIV UP School
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
