Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
SMT BINI MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court discusses entitlement under statutory rules. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's appointment approval was denied. (Para 2) |
| 3. court directed reconsideration of the denial of protection. (Para 3) |
J U D G M E N T
I have heard Sri.T.R. Rajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.
2. The petitioner was appointed as UPSA in the year
2001, and admittedly, her appointment as above was also approved. Subsequently, pursuant to Ext.P1 order, she was promoted and posted as HSA (SS) with effect from 01.08.2011, based on a claim under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules , 1959 ( KER ). However, her appointment as HSA as above was not approved essentially on the basis of the fact that no staff fixation was granted to the school. As against the refusal to approve the appointment as above, both the petitioner and the management of the school went up in appeal before the 2nd respondent. By Ext.P6 appellate order, the appeals filed as above came to be rejected by the 2nd respondent - Joint Director. Though a further revision was presented before the Government by the petitioner, the Government, by Ext.P8,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
