The court upheld the legitimacy of a teacher's appointment while emphasizing the need for timely challenges against administrative orders affecting employment positions.

JUDGMENT

[WP(C) Nos.39470/2023, 20773/2022, 29116/2019, 35146/2023, 33639/2019]

These writ petitions are concerning a complicated issue of appointment to the post of UPSA as well as HSA in the School managed by the 5^th respondent in W.P.(C) No.29116 of 2019. For ease of reference, the parties are referred to by their names in this judgment.

2. Smt. Sangeetha S., the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29116 of 2019, was appointed as a Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in one of the schools under the management of the Corporate Manager, TD Schools, Thuravoor/Alappuzha, Alappuzha district, with effect from 25.07.2016 onwards. It is not in dispute that the appointment as above was not approved. Still later, the Manager sought to appoint Smt. Sangeetha S. as a UPSA w.e.f. 11.12.2017 as against the vacancy which arose from 01.12.2017 - a retirement vacancy. Here also, it may straight away be noticed that the appointment of Smt. Sangeetha S. was not approved originally by the Educational Officer, citing a Rule 51A claimant – one Smt. V. Rakhi. It is not in dispute that even though the appointment as above was not approved, Smt. Sangeetha S. continued to work as a UPSA. The non-approval of the appointment as above was challenged by filing an appeal, and the Deputy Director of Education issued Ext.P3, dated 23.07.2019 rejecting the same. Later, in the meantime another teacher one Sri. V. Balakrishnan, who was appointed during 2002 and was continuing in service, took up the matter before the Deputy Director of Education, who issued Ext.P4 order dated 20.12.2017. By the said order, the Deputy Director of Education found that the appointments effected to Smt. P.J. Vidya Nandini as well as Smt. G. Priya were incorrect, and therefore, orders were issued directing the appointments to Smt. G. Priya as well as Smt. P.J. Vidya Nandini to be cancelled and the afore Sri. V. Balakrishnan, the protected teacher to be given appointment. Ext.P4 order was admittedly implemented by the Manager as evidenced by Ext.P5 order dated 29.12.2017. Smt. P.J. Vidya Nandini filed a revision petition before the Government and by Ext.P6 order dated 12.06.2018, the Government sought to reject the revision petition, however making some other observations also. It was found by the Government through the afore order that the appointment to Smt. P.J. Vidya Nandini on 01.06.2015 as the HSA happened to be made on the basis of an incorrect declaration submitted and it is only subsequently that the afore aspect came to the notice of the Educational Authorities. Therefore, it was found that Sri. V. Balakrishnan, who was originally appointed in 2013-14 ought to be permitted to continue and Smt. G. Priya, who was also appointed on 03.06.2013 and whose appointment was also approved requires to be permitted to continue. Therefore, ultimately the claim made by Smt. P.J. Vidya Nandini came to be rejected. It may straight away be noticed that the order dated 12.06.2018 issued by the Government in the revision petition filed by the afore Smt. P.J. Vidya Nandini has not been challenged any further by anyone.

3. Later, it appears that Smt. P.J. Vidya Nandini approached the Educational Authorities with respect to a claim under the provisions of Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of KER, which was also rejected. The afore rejection was a subject matter of challenge before this Court, and on the basis of the directions issued, the Government considered the matter leading to issue of Ext.P9 dated 17.10.2019. By the afore order dated 17.10.2019, though the claim made by Smt. P.J. Vidya Nandini under the provisions of Rule 51A came to be rejected, the Government noticed that