Kerala High Court
Poornima vs Director Of Public Instructions on 4 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(3)KLT502
Author: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Bench: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. The petitioner and the 7th respondent were appointed as HSAs in a School under the 4th respondent Corporate Manager. The 7th respondent was appointed for the first time on 22.12.1999, for a spell from 22.12.1999 to 23.2.2000 and the first appointment of the petitioner was on 22.6.2000, for a spell from 22.6.2000 to 1.11.2000. It is stated that the appointment of the petitioner as above was approved by the competent statutory authority on 22.6.2000 while the question regarding the approval of the appointment of the 7th respondent as above continued to be undecided for quite some time. Ultimately, the statutory authority approved the appointment of the 7th respondent by order dated 20.3.2004.
2. Going by the relevant Rule in Chapter XIVA K.E.R., the approval of appointment of the 7th respondent granted as per order dt. 20.3.2004 will relate back to 22.12.1999 and the approved service of the petitioner will be from 22.6.2000. Therefore, it goes without saying that the 7th respondent had, to her credit, an earlier approved service than that of the petitioner:
3. By Ext.P5, the Director of Public Instructions disposed of the dispute between the parties holding that the 7th respondent was the one entitled to be appointed in preference to the petitioner as against a vacancy to which the petitioner was making claim before the DPI. It is this order dt. 23.2.2004 that is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
4. Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA provides that qualified teachers who are relieved as per Rules 49 & 52 on account of termination of vacancy shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other educational agency. Note (1) to the said Rule provides that if there are more than one claimants under the said Rule, the order of preference shall be according to the date of the first appointment. There may be different persons with the same date of appointment. So much so, for the purpose of applying Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA what is relevant is the date of first appointment and not the date on which such appointment is approved. In this view of the matter, the challenge of the petitioner as regards the preference given to the 7th respondent for the appointment in question fails and the first relief sought for in the Writ Petition is accordingly refused.
5. The petitioner then urges that there are subsequent different spells during which the petitioner had worked, but is yet to be disbursed with salary since such spells of appointment have not yet been approved. The counter affidavit placed on record by the District Educational Officer states that such approvals have not been appropriately forwarded by the Manager for being considered for approval.
6. Therefore, I direct the 4th respondent to forward all such appointment orders of the petitioner to the competent statutory authority for approval and the statutory authority will, on receipt of such materials, consider the case of the petitioner for approval within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such appointment orders. The petitioners will be at liberty to make further representation to expedite the above said relief by placing a certified copy of the judgment before the DEO.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.