Rejection of appointment based on untimely revision of staff fixation is flawed under Kerala Educational Rules.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was appointed as UPSA in the school managed by the 5^th respondent herein as against the promotion vacancy of One Sri.V.Shaji, who was working as a UPSA, who got promoted as a HSA w.e.f 13.06.2018. It is not in dispute that the appointment as above has been carried out with reference to the staff fixation for the year 2017-18. Later, the staff fixation with respect to the period 2018-19 was also carried out as evidenced by Ext.P3, as per which, there were nine sanctioned post of UPSA. Ext.P3 was issued on 03.07.2018. However, after the currency of the period on 17.07.2019, the DEO sought to revise the staff fixation for the period 2018-19, as per which, one post of UPSA was reduced, alleging bogus admission carried out in the school. Placing reliance on the afore, the appointment effected to the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P1 was not approved by the 4^th respondent herein as evidenced by Ext.P2 dated 18.09.2019. It is in the afore circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to challenge the proceedings at Ext.P2 and also seeking for a direction/declaration to the effect that her appointment approval ought to be carried out with reference to the original staff fixation at Ext.P3.

2. I have heard Sri.Paulson Thomas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.N.B. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

3. The short point arising for consideration in this writ petition as noticed earlier is as to whether the appointment given to the petitioner can be rejected as seen from Ext.P2, on the basis of a subsequent fixation, though with reference to the year 2018-19.

4. A reference to the provisions ofRule 15of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Educational Rules, 1959 (KER) show that though the DEO is competent to carry out revision of staff fixation, that requires to be carried out only during the “current year/course of the year”. Here the original staff fixation as evidenced by Ext.P3 was during the period 2018-2019 carried out on 03.07.2018. In the light of the afore, the revised staff fixation pursuant to Ext.P10 carried out on 17.07.2019 is admittedly beyond the prescribed period under the provisions ofRule 15of KER referred to above. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the consideration made while issuing Ext.P2 was flawed.

5. Sri.Paulson Thomas, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly points out that, at this belated juncture, the petitioner only requires a notional consideration of her claim for approval of appointment, on account of which, she would be in a position to claim the benefits of Rule 51A Chapter XIVA of KER. He would further point out that though the petitioner has been subsequently accommodated in the year 2022, as evidenced by Ext.P5, that appointment was also not approved on account of the above aspects.

Taking into account of all the above, this writ petition would stand ordered as under:-

i. The order at Ext.P2 by which the appointment of the petitioner was rejected, is set aside.

ii. There will also be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to approve the petitioner's appointment pursuant to Ext.P1, with reference to the staff fixation at Ext.P3, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

iii. It is further clarified that the approval of the petitioner's appointment would only be having notional effects.

Sd/-