Kerala High Court
Ancy Anna Philip vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2009
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25232 of 2008(D)
1. ANCY ANNA PHILIP
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
4. DISTTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
5. MANAGER, ST.MARY'S HS. & ST.THOMAS H.S.S
6. MINI MATHEW, HSA(ENG),
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent :SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :23/09/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.25232 OF 2008
------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner worked as a HSA in the leave vacancies during period from 19.1.2000 to 30.3.2000 and 19.6.2001 to 1.6.2004. These appointments were approved as per Exts.P1 and P2 orders. During the currency of the 2nd spell of her appointment, there arose another vacancy of HSA (Maths), during the period from 24.7.2003 to 23.7.2008. It is stated that the Manager appointed the 6th respondent overlooking her claims.
2. According to the petitioner, subsequently a regular vacancy of HSA (Maths) arose on 1.6.2005 and then again, overlooking her superior claim as a 51-A claimant, the 6th respondent was adjusted to that vacancy. The appointment of the 6th respondent was approved and that lead the petitioner to file a representation before the DPI resulting in WP(c).No.25232/08 2 Ext.P11 order of rejection, which was also confirmed by the Government as per Ext.P12. It is challenging these orders that the writ petition is filed.
3. However, a reading of Exts.P11 and P12 shows that, like the petitioner, the 6th respondent was also a 51A claimant. It is stated that one Smt. Mariama P. Cherian, HSA (Maths) was adjusted against the category of HSA (English) being an excess hand in the category of HSA (Maths). She entered on leave without allowance for 5 years from 24.7.2003 to 3.7.2008. It was in that vacancy the 6th respondent, another 51-A claimant, was appointed as HSA(English)and it was that appointment which was upheld by the DEO, on the basis of an appellate order passed by the Deputy Director of Education.
4. The aforesaid order of the DEO was challenged by the petitioner in her representation before the DPI and it is that representation which was rejected as per Ext.P11 order. Ext.P11 shows that the vacancy was in the category of HSA (English) and not HSA (Maths) as contended by the petitioner. It is also stated in Ext.P12 Government Order that such WP(c).No.25232/08 3 employment was necessary, to maintain the minimum subject requirement ordered in GO(MS).No.11/2002 G.Edn. dated 7.1.2002.
5. The petitioner's case that the vacancy is of HS A (Maths), is factually incorrect as is seen from Exts.P11 and P12. Further the appointment of the 6th respondent was also to satisfy the minimum subject requirement.
6. Counsel for the petitioner relied on Ext.P12 Government order dated 17.6.2009. A reading of this order shows that even if the petitioner's claim for the benefit of the said order is conceded, it is clarified in the said order that the benefits extended there under will not affect the appointments which are already approved. On facts it can be seen that the appointments of the 6th respondent is also approved.
In the circumstances I see no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.25232/08 4