Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 43089
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J
SWAPNA K L – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/15115/2015
SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND, M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. M.J. RAJASREE
Rule 51A claimants have the right to appointments when approved service exists, irrespective of the school's economic status.
Headnote:
Claimant - Teaching Post - Rule 51A Claim - 2(1) and 3 of Rules 2009 - Court upheld the petitioner's right to appointment under the Rule 51A provisions, citing previous judgments affirming the stance that approved appointments are necessary despite petitions from protected teachers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the refusal of her appointment to a teaching post based on the claim that she was a Rule 51A claimant and had approved service, despite the 3rd respondent's assertion to appoint protected teachers only due to the school's status as uneconomic.
Issues: Whether the refusal to approve the petitioner's appointment as a High School Assistant was justified given her status as a Rule 51A claimant and the context of the school's financial situation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legal rights of Rule 51A claimants to be considered for appointments based on approved service, overriding administrative justifications for preferential treatment of protected teachers in certain cases.
Final Decision: The court directed the approval of the petitioner's appointment from 03.06.2013 with consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, is a Rule 51A claimant for appointment to a teaching post under the 4th respondent educational agency. It is not in dispute that she has got approved service, as evidenced by Ext.P1 appointment order, that has been approved by the educational authority. The petitioner was appointed as a High School Assistant (SS) with effect from 03.06.2013 in the school in question. The 3rd respondent, however, refused to approve the said appointment on the ground that the school in question being an uneconomic school, the appointments of teachers to regular vacancies had to be from among the protected teachers and not by permitting a Rule 51A claimant to take up the appointment. It is the said decision of the 3rd respondent (Ext.P8), that is impugned in the writ petition.
2. I have heard Sri.Subhash Chand, thew learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, and taking note of the W.P.(C). No. 15115 of 2015 decision of this Court inCiji.P.Jose v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2012 (1) KLT 867 ], that was affirmed by the Division Bench in State of Kerala and Others v. Ciji.P.Jose [2015 (1) KHC 232], I dispose the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner to the vacancy arising in the school, with effect from 03.06.2013 and disburse all consequential benefits flowing from the said approval, to the petitioner. The respondents shall do the needful in ensuring compliance with the directions in this judgment, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that, nothing in this judgment shall be construed as having decided any right of the petitioner to appointment to a vacancy arising prior to 03.06.2013 in the school and the petitioner may agitate the same before the appropriate forum.
