Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 43010
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.T.SANKARAN, J
K.S.VIJAYALAKSHMI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/9150/2010
SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
The court established that prior orders should not impede the reconsideration of a petitioner's appointment under government educational orders.
Headnote:
Appointment - Educational Employment - G.O.(P) No.46/06/G.Edn., G.O.(Rt.) No.2199/2007/G.Edn., G.O.(Rt) No.3426/2009/G.Edn. - The court reviewed the legality of the government's rejection of the appointment approval based on established guidelines, emphasizing the need to reconsider the petitioner's case in light of prior judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as HSA (Hindi) for a temporary vacancy, but the district officials rejected the approval for the appointment. Despite multiple representations and court interventions, the approval was consistently denied based on the absence of a protected teacher status.
Issues: Whether the government's rejection of the petitioner's appointment approval was valid considering the legal framework and prior judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the government must reassess the situation of the petitioner regarding her appointment and not consider prior rejections as barriers to reviewing her case.
Final Decision: The court directed the government to reconsider the petitioner's appointment application afresh.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was appointed as HSA (Hindi) for the period from 14.6.2004 to 30.9.2004 in the leave vacancy of Remadevi Amma, HSA (Hindi). The District Educational Officer rejected the proposal for approval of appointment. The appeals preferred by the Manager were dismissed by the Deputy Director of Education and the Director of Public Instruction and also by the Government. Remadevi extended her leave up to 30.10.2004 and she applied for voluntary retirement with effect from 1.11.2004. The voluntary retirement was sanctioned and thus there arose a permanent vacancy of HSA (Hindi) in the school with effect from 1.11.2004.
2. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.34234 of 2006 which was disposed of on 21.12.2006 directing the Government take a decision in the matter and to grant the benefit of G.O.(P) No.46/06/G.Edn. dated 1.2.2006. The Government passed G.O.(Rt.)No.
W.P.(C) No.9150 of 2010 2
2199/2007/G.Edn. dated 21.5.2007 and rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner. It would appear that the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.24561 of 2007 challenging the order passed by the Government. The petitioner submitted another representation dated 15.1.2009 before the Government. That representation was considered by the Government and it was disposed of as per G.O.(Rt) No.3426/2009/G. Edn. dated 12.8.2009 rejecting the request made by the petitioner to approve the appointment. The approval was rejected on the ground that the Manager did not appoint a protected teacher, the school being a newly opened/upgraded school.
3. W.P.(C) No.24561 of 2007 filed by the petitioner was disposed of along with W.P.(C) Nos.22114 of 2009 filed by the Manager and 24599 of 2007 filed by one Jimmishan. The Government Order dated 12.8.2009, which is challenged in this Writ Petition marking the same as Ext.P8, was produced as Ext.R1(a) in the three Writ Petitions mentioned earlier. After considering all the aspects, this Court directed the Government to consider the matter afresh in the light of certain other Government Orders.
W.P.(C) No.9150 of 2010 3
4. In view of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.24651 of 2007 directing the Government to consider the entire issue, it is only proper that the said direction is implemented. Ext. P8 order passed by the Government subsequent to the order impugned in W.P.(C) No.24651 of 2007 should not stand in the way of the Government disposing of the matter afresh in the light of the directions contained in the judgment dated 5th August, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.24651 of 2007. To that extent, it is made clear that Ext.P8 order dated 12.8.2009 need not be considered as a bar for the Government in considering the entire issue afresh.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE
