Kerala High Court
V.I.Susanna vs The State Of Kerala on 29 August, 2008
Author: C.N.Ramachandran Nair
Bench: C.N.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25377 of 2004(U)
1. V.I.SUSANNA, AGED 53 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. THE MANAGER,
6. THE HEADMISTRESS,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :29/08/2008
O R D E R
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 25377 OF 2004
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 confirmed by Ext.P8. Petitioner's case is that petitioner, who was not a qualified teacher, was appointed as part-time Junior Sanskrit Teacher to teach students in the U.P. School on 22.7.1974. However, when school was upgraded in 1984, the post was abolished and Sanskrit teacher on regular basis was appointed to High School. Under a special order, the post was retained for one year that is for 1984-85 and petitioner was paid salary until 29.3.1985 when the post stood abolished. Petitioner was granted permanent exemption from qualification and was allowed to continue as teacher from 1989 onwards. However, it is the finding of the Government in Ext.P7 that there was no post to accommodate the petitioner from 1985-86 to 1988-89 and petitioner was not enaged in the school. Even though petitioner's case is that she was attending the school, I do not know what purpose would be served by attending the school when there was no post. There is no scope for any enquiry by 2 this Court as to whether petitioner was reaching the school every day and was teaching the students during the period when there was no post. Petitioner did not challenge the abolition of post from 1985-86 onwards buy has chosen to claim salary for the period when there was no post. Unless this Court restores the post for four years, this Court cannot hold that petitioner was employed in the school. There is no scope for considering restoration of post abolished in the school after 20 years of the relevant period, that is 1985-86 to 1988-89. Petitioner's service was later regularised and she retired from service on 30.6.2006. I do not think there is any scope for ordering salary to the petitioner for the period when there was no post in the school.
W.P.C. is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.
(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3