Rule 51 A claimants hold priority in appointment over protected teachers in regular vacancies within uneconomic schools.

J U D G M E N T

The 1st petitioner, who is a Lower Primary School Assistant in the School under the management of the 2nd petitioner had a claim for future appointments under Rule 51 A of Chapter XIV A, KER from 1999. When a vacancy arose in the School with effect from 01.06.2011 consequent to the retirement of Smt.Sheeba P.Paliakkara, who was promoted as Headmistress, the petitioner was appointed to the said vacancy. Ext.P2 is the appointment order which shows that the petitioner was initially appointed to the said vacancy for the period from 01.06.2011 to 31.03.2012. Thereafter, she was reappointed in the same vacancy with effect from 04.06.2012. It is seen from the averments in the writ petition that both these appointments were not approved by the educational authority on the ground that, the petitioner being a Rule 51 A claimant would not get precedence in the matter of appointment over a protected teacher, who had to be appointed to vacancies that arose in the School. It is aggrieved by the orders denying approval to the appointment of the 1st petitioner that, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition.

2. I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that the issue in question is no longer res integra, and by a decision of this Court in Ciji.P.Jose v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2012 (1) KLT 867 ], it was held that when it comes to a preferential appointment in a regular vacancy that arises in an uneconomic School, a Rule 51 A claimant will have a preference in appointment over a protected hand inasmuch as a Rule 51 A claimant traces her right to a provision of a Rule, as against a protected teacher who gets a right consequent to executive orders. In that view of the matter, I feel that there is no justification in the respondents refusing approval to the appointment of the 1st petitioner which is admittedly to a regular vacancy that arose in the School with effect from 01.06.2011. Accordingly, following the decision of this Court inCiji.P.Jose v. State of Kerala and Others [ ], this writ petition is allowed by directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the 1st petitioner as LPSA in the School with effect from 01.06.2011 and grant the salary and other allowances that flow from the said approval. The respondents shall do the needful in disbursing the arrears of salary and other benefits due to the 1st petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after approving the appointment in the manner indicated above. I make it clear that, while effecting payment as directed in this judgment, the respondents can adjust the amounts already paid to the 1st petitioner by way of daily wages.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

A. K .JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns