The court ruled that authorities must consider leave vacancies and protections in staff appointments under the educational regulations.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2026 The writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P4 and P7, being aggrieved by the issuance of the same. The case of the petitioner is that she was originally appointed in a leave without allowance (LWA) vacancy availed by Smt.Elsy P. Oommen. As evident from Ext.P1 order, her leave period was from 11.09.2006 to 31.07.2009.

2. While so, as per Ext.P2 staff fixation order, one post was reduced. However, Ext.P2 itself specifically records that Smt.Sreeja James, UPSA (LS), was protected in terms of G.O. No.9679/J2/99/G.Edn. dated 24.03.1999. The relevant portion of the said Government Order reads as follows:

“Government are pleased to clarify that the benefit under the revised teacher-student ratio of 1:40 can be applied in favour of the leave substitutes also.”

3. However, by Ext.P4 order, the District Educational Officer stated that the Manager, PHS Padagiri, had appointed Smt.Sreeja James as UPSA for the period from

01.08.2009 to 21.03.2010 against the LWA vacancy of Smt. Elsy P. Oommen. It was further stated that, upon verification, certain defects were noticed, and accordingly, approval of the appointment was rejected.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the Manager preferred an appeal, which came to be rejected by Ext.P5 order. In Ext. P5, it was specifically stated that the excess teacher ought to have been accommodated against the extended leave vacancy of Smt.Elsy P. Oommen for the period from

15.07.2009 to 21.03.2010.

5. It is further contended that, as per Ext.P2 order, in the light of Ext.P3, the petitioner herself stood protected up to 31.07.2009, and the revision preferred by the Manager was also rejected therein. In the above circumstances, the Manager preferred a revision petition before the Government, which was ultimately rejected by Ext.P7. However, in the said order, it is stated that, consequent to the reduction of posts in the academic year 2009–2010 in PHS Padagiri, there was no sanctioned establishment vacancy available to accommodate Smt.Sreeja James in the post of UPSA with effect from 01.08.2009.

6. In response to the contentions, a counter affidavit has been filed stating that, during the academic year 2008–2009, six posts of UPSA were sanctioned to the school. However, in the academic year 2009–2010, only five posts of UPSA were sanctioned as per the teacher–student ratio of

1:40, resulting in the reduction of one post.

7. It is further stated that the number of regular approved UPSA teachers on the rolls during the academic year 2009–2010 was six, excluding the petitioner, since her appointment was only on a temporary basis against the LWA vacancy of a regular UPSA, namely Smt. Elsy P. Oommen. The regular UPSA teachers on roll during the said academic year were as follows:

1.Smt. Elsy P. Oommen

2.Sri P.G. Benny

3.Smt. Lizamma Louis

4.Smt. Thanuja

5.Smt. Biji A. Anand 6.Smt. Rajarajeswari

8. It is further submitted that, due to the reduction of one UPSA post in the academic year 2009–2010, the junior-most regular approved teacher, Smt.Rajarajeswari, was rendered surplus and was consequently accommodated against the LWA vacancy of Smt.Elsy P. Oommen, who had extended her leave for the period from 01.08.2009 to

21.03.2010.

9. Subsequently, Smt.Rajarajasree, who was thus retained against the LWA vacancy, was accommodated by applying the 1:40 teacher–student ratio upon revision of the staff fixation order for the academic year 2009–2010, as per the directions of the 3^rd respondent.

10. In the above circumstances, since there was a reduction of one UPSA post and the available regular UPSA teachers were accommodated under the 1:40 ratio, the appointment of the petitioner as UPSA (leave substitute) made by the Manager for the period fr