Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 26179
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
SMITHA T.S., – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
WP(C)/4657/2019
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ, SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY, KUM.A.ARUNA, SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI, SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.M.SAJJAD, SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE
Final judicial confirmation of Rule 51A claims necessitates adherence in employment appointments, ensuring rightful claimants are appointed.
Headnote:
Employment - School Appointment - Rule 51A - Summary: The court addresses the competing claims for a High School vacancy, referencing Rule 51A for appointment. It emphasizes the finality of a prior judgment affirming rights under Rule 51A and the necessity for timely appointment and benefit disbursement.
Fact of the Case:
Two individuals claim the same vacancy for a High School Assistant position. One asserts entitlement under Rule 51A, while the other claims valid managerial appointment. A prior ruling supports the first claimant's rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court determines that the previous ruling confirming the first claimant's rights under Rule 51A has become final, mandating her appointment and addressing the second claimant's adjustments to another vacancy.
Issues: The primary issue concerns the rightful appointment for the High School Assistant position based on conflicting claims under Rule 51A.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that existing legal precedents affirming the rights under Rule 51A must be honored, establishing entitlement to appointment based on those rights.
Final Decision: Both writ petitions are allowed, directing appointments against specific vacancies.
J U D G M E N T
These two writ petitions are the result of conflicting claims made by two persons to the vacancy of High School Assistant (HSA) in Physical Science in “P.V.S.H.School”, which is managed by the 5th respondent.
2. While Smt.Smitha T.S., petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.4657/2019, asserts that she was enjoying a Rule 51A claim and therefore, entitled to the said vacancy; Smt. Usha C.N - petitioner in W.P.(C).No.35424/2018, says that she was appointed to this vacancy by the Manager validly and therefore, entitled to the benefit of salary for the period she worked from
26.06.2007 to 24.10.2017.
3. I notice that the controversy in these cases arose because the Manger initially refused to recognize the right of Smt.T.S.Smitha as a Rule 51A claimant, but it was thereafter, declared by this Court in the judgment in W.A.No.2466/2005 - a copy of which has been appended to W.P.(C).No.4657/2019 as Ext.P1 - that the Manger ought to have appointed her to the vacancy in question, since her right as a Rule 51A claimant is established and that Smt.C.N.Usha can be appointed to any other available vacancy. This judgment appears to have been taken up in an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the Manger by filing a Special Leave Petition and initially stayed.
4. However, through the judgment dated 19.09.2017, the Civil Appeal, consequent to the afore mentioned Special Leave Petition, was dismissed and obviously, therefore, the declarations in the judgment in W.A.No.2466/2005 (Ext.P1 in W.P.(C).No.4657 of 2019) have now become final.
5. Therefore, as matters now stand, Smt.T.S.Smitha is certainly entitled to be appointed against a vacancy that arose in the year 2007, and if that be so, the position of Smt.Usha C.N will become in jeopardy.
6. However, thankfully for her, it appears that there was a vacancy consequent to a teacher, by name Smt.Demmy John, having taken Leave Without Allowances, and when this matter was called today, the learned counsel for the Manager of the School, acceded that appointment of Smt.C.N.Usha can be adjusted against that vacancy with effect from 26.06.2007. 7. In that perspective, it is clear that most of the controversies in these cases are now coming to an end, since Smt.T.S.Smitha can certainly be now appointed against the vacancy that arose in the year 2007 - consequent to the promotion of a Teacher by name Smt.N.Geetha; while, Smt.C.N.Usha, can stand regularized against the other vacancy caused due to availing of Leave Without Allowances by Smt.Demmy John, also with effect from 26.06.2007.
8. That said, I must record the submissions of Smt.Sheela Devi I. - learned counsel appearing for Smt.Smitha T.S., that her client, on account of the fact that she was not getting appointed in spite of all these litigations, had joined the services of the Judiciary in Irijalakuda as a Last Grade Servant in the year 2012, but that she wants to resign from there and join the school in the vacancy which is rightfully hers.
9. It is thus ineluctable that Government will have to now take a final call on all these aspects at the earliest .
In the afore circumstances, I order these writ petitions in the following manner:
(a) W.P.(C).No.4657/2019 is allowed, and the Manager is directed to issue an appropriate appointment order in favour of the petitioner namely Smt.T.S.Smitha, against the vacancy arose in the year 2007, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and forward the same to the competent District Educational Officer (DEO) without any further delay thereafter. On the proposal for approval of Smt.T.S.Smitha so reaching the DEO, the said Officer will consider the same and issue appropriate orders thereon, also taking note of the fact that Smt.T.S.Smitha, had been working in the Judicial Department from 14.12.2012, until the date on which she resigns therefrom.
(b) W.P.(C).No.35424/2018 is ordered, and the Manager is directed to issue a fresh appointment order in favour of the petitione
