Kerala High Court
N.M.Gigimol vs Director Of Higher Secondary Education on 11 December, 2008
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22424 of 2008(T)
1. N.M.GIGIMOL, H.S.S.T.MATHEMATICS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
... Respondent
2. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER
3. THE MANAGER, S.N.HIGHER SECONDARY
4. PRINCIPAL, S.N.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
For Petitioner :SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI
For Respondent :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :11/12/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
==============
W.P.(C) NO. 22424 OF 2008 (T)
====================
Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008
J U D G M E N T
According to the petitioner, a vacancy in the category of HSST (Maths) arose under the 3rd respondent w.e.f. 24/8/98 and the petitioner was the eligible person to be appointed against that vacancy. She was not appointed and thereupon she approached this court and filed OP No.3515/01. That OP was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment, where it was directed that since the petitioner was already in the ranked list, her claim will be considered for appointment as and when vacancy arises.
2. Unsatisfied with the direction of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner filed WA No.797/07 and that writ appeal along with connected matters was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment. Para 6 of Ext.P2 judgment reads as under:
Under such circumstances, we are inclined to allow WA Nos.797, 837 and 1729/07 and set aside Ext.P11 order in OP No.3515/01 and declare that the petitioner was the legitimate claimant for the post of HSST, the vacancy of which arose on 24.8.1998. Since the petitioner had not worked in the post of HSST, she is not entitled to get salary, however, she would be deemed to have been appointed in the post of HSST with effect from 24.8.1998 and that period would be counted for all service benefits except salary. Since third respondent had worked as HSST from 26.10.1998, the salary paid would not be WPC 22424/08 :2 : recovered. Management would implement the judgment within a period of one month from today.
3. Petitioner states that against the judgment, the aggrieved teacher had filed an SLP before the Apex Court and on its rejection, review was attempted before the Division Bench and that was also rejected. Still later, by Ext.P3, she was offered employment and accordingly, she joined duty w.e.f. 20th of February, 2008 and is continuing in that post. However, for the reason that the Manager did not make proposal seeking approval of her appointment, appointment has not been approved so far and as a result of which, she is not getting salary for the work she is doing. It is with that grievance the writ petition is filed.
4. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the 2nd respondent has not received any proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment so far, and that, it was therefore that he could not consider the approval of appointment of the petitioner.
5. In my view, it is totally unjustified to leave the petitioner at the mercy of the Manager, who throughout was unwilling to recognise her claim for appointment. It was only faced with Ext.P2, the final judgment rendered by this Court, which was confirmed by the Apex Court and on failure of the Review Petition that the Manager offered her employment by WPC 22424/08 :3 : Ext.P3. Therefore, obviously, attempt of the Manager is to delay the approval so that more prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. This cannot be allowed to happen especially in the light of the declaration made by this Court in para 6 of Ext.P2 judgment, which binds all including the Educational Officers.
6. Therefore, I direct the petitioner to produce a copy of Ext.P3 appointment order, along with Ext.P2 judgment rendered by the Division Bench in WA No.797/07, in which case, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same for approval of her appointment. If the 2nd respondent feels that any further documents are necessary, it will be open to the 2nd respondent to require the 3rd respondent Manager to produce such documents and in case of his failure, appropriate proceedings will be initiated against him. Whatever that be, orders of approval shall be passed by the 2nd respondent, at any rate, within 2 months of production of Ext.P3 and a copy of Ext.P2 judgment together with a certified copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp