The competent authority must afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before rejecting the proposal for approval of the appointment.

Headnote:
EDUCATION - APPOINTMENT - PROMOTION - REJECTION - NON-PUBLICATION OF SENIORITY LIST - REVISION PETITION - LIMITATION - RULE 8(A) OF CHAPTER XIV OF KER
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant against the promotion vacancy. However, the proposal for approval of the appointment was rejected due to non-publication of the seniority list. The petitioner filed a revision petition under Rule 8(A) of Chapter XIV of KER, which was also rejected. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his appointment.
Finding of the Court:

The court directed the competent authority to decide the revision petitions preferred by the petitioner and the appeal preferred by the Corporate Manager within a period of three months, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appointment was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the petitioner's appointment was not valid as the competent authority had not afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before rejecting the proposal for approval of the appointment.
Final Decision: The court directed the competent authority to decide the revision petitions preferred by the petitioner and the appeal preferred by the Corporate Manager within a period of three months, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner, with effect from 01.06.2019, was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant now Teacher in L.M.S. U.P School, Parasuvaykal against the promotion vacancy of Smt.K.S.Selin Margret as Head Mistress. The Corporate Manager - 5th respondent vide Ext.P1 sent a proposal for approval of the appointment to the Assistant Educational OfÏcer, respondent No.4. However, the aforementioned proposal was rejected vide communication dated 23.12.2019 Ext.P3. The prime reason for rejecting was on account of non publishing of the seniority list.

2. The aforementioned order was assailed by the Corporate Manager by preferring an appeal under Rule 8(5) of Chapter XIV of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 before the District Educational OfÏcer, Neyyattinkara. The same was also rejected vide order dated 29.09.2020 Ext.P4. As per the provisions of Rule 8(A) of Chapter XIV of KER statutory remedy of revision has been preferred by the 6th respondent much less the petitioner. However, during the pendency of the revision petition vide order Ext.P8 dated 11.02.2021 6th respondent - S.K.Stari Pushpam in place of the petitioner was appointed as Teacher. Being aggrieved of non-payment of the salary, has also preferred the appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that a quietus can be brought to the lis by issuing directions to the competent authority to decide all the appeal/revision petitions i.e., three in number within a time bound as in W.P.(C)23528 of 2021 preferred by 6th respondent, wherein a direction has already been issued by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2021 and the same directions may be passed viz the appeal of 5th respondent and revision petition of the petitioner.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, I dispose off the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent to decide the revision petitions preferred by the petitioner and the appeal preferred by the 5th respondent as also the revision of 6th respondent as already directed by this Court vide judgment dated 29.10.2021 within a period of three months, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing. The interim order granted by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2021 is ordered to be continued till the disposal of the revision petitions.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10239/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.B/567/19/CM DATED 31.5.19 OF THE CORPORATE MANAGER OF LMS SCHOOLS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED

1.4.2019 OF THE CORPORATE MANAGER OF LMS SCHOOLS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CONTAINING ENDORSEMENT NO:C/869/D.DIS.

DATED 2.9.2019 OF ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PARASSALA.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO:C/12442/2019 DATED 23.12.2019 OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PARASSALA.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.B6/192111/2020 DATED 29.9.2020 OF DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REVISION PETITION DATED 2.11.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE

2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

10.7.2020 IN WPC 11469/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

8.4.2021 IN WPC 9259/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO:B/389/2021/CM DATED 11.2.2021 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO:A (1)7813/2021 DATED 19.3.21 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document