Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 21081
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC, SHIRCY V., JJ
TINTA C VARGHESE – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL 2177/2015
Leave substitutes in educational institutions are entitled to regularization against the first permanent vacancy, based on seniority, as per governing rules and orders.
Headnote:
Employment - Educational Appointment - Kerala Education Rules - Chapter XIV A, Rule 51 - Clarifies entitlement and regularization of appointments for leave substitutes in educational institutions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved claims for appointment against educational vacancies by individuals who were previously appointed as leave substitutes. Disputes arose regarding the approval of their appointments against regular vacancies and the order of seniority under the Kerala Education Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld that the claim of the appellant for appointment against the regular vacancy was valid based on government orders and prior judgments, directing the appropriate appointments to be made.
Issues: Whether the appointments of individuals serving as leave substitutes should be prioritized for regular vacancies under the relevant educational rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that leave substitutes must be regularized against the first arising permanent vacancy based on seniority, in accordance with government order and prior court rulings.
Final Decision: The appeals were partly allowed, directing the appointments of the claimants as per their rightful entitlements.
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic,J.
These appeals arise from the common judgment in W.P.(C)No.13016 of 2014, 13645 of 2014 and 16981 of 2011 respectively which were disposed of by a common judgment along with W.P.(C) No. 2585 of 2011 against which no appeal has been preferred. Briefly states the facts of the case are as under:
2. The father of Smt. Tinta C. Varghese, the appellant, in W.A.Nos. 2177 & 2204/2015, was an High School Assistant in St.Raphael's High School, Ezhupunna. He expired while in service on 17.9.1988. Smt. Tinta C.
2204/2015 & 293/2016 2 Varghese, being a claimant under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules (for short ' KER ') was appointed in a leave vacancy in the school for five years with effect from 2.6.2009. This was in the vacancy of a UPSA, and her appointment upto 31.3.2010 was approved on daily wages. She was again appointed against the very same vacancy with effect from 1.6.2010. Though the District Educational Officer (DEO) initially rejected approval of her appointment, the Director of Public Instruction(DPI) passed orders directing that in the absence of any senior claimant in the school, her appointment shall be approved. Accordingly by order dated 3.10.2012, the DEO approved her appointment from 2.6.2009 to 31.5.2014.
3. While she was continuing in the leave vacancy, a regular vacancy of UPSA arose due to resignation, with effect from 30.11.2011 and Smt. Tinta C. Varghese claimed appointment against that vacancy. Her claim was not
2204/2015 & 293/2016 3 considered and it was in these circumstances, she filed W.P.
(C)No. 13645 of 2014.
4. Insofar as W.P.(C)No.13016/2014 is concerned, that was filed by Sri. Tijo Thomas, whose mother was a LPSA in St.Mary's L.P.School, Edeyazham. His mother passed away on 15.11.1995. Subsequently, a leave vacancy arose in the school for the period from 5.6.2007 to 31.3.2008 and the Manager appointed Smt. K.E. Sindhu. Still later, Sri Tijo Thomas became qualified for appointment as LPSA with effect from 15.10.2009. Subsequently, a regular vacancy arose in the school on retirement of the incumbent with effect from 31.3.2010 and to that vacancy Smt. Sindhu K.E., a 51A claimant, was appointed by the Manager. Contending that he being a claimant under Rule 51B, he ought to have been appointed to that vacancy, Sri Tijo Thomas raised a claim which was rejected by the Government as a belated one. By the said order, the
2204/2015 & 293/2016 4 Government also ordered cancellation of the approval of appointment of Smt. Sindhu for the period from 5.6.2007 to 31.3.2008, when she was appointed against the leave vacancy. Sri Tijo Thomas challenged the Government Order by filing W.P.(C)No.2585/2011 and Smt. Sindhu filed W.P.
(C) No. 16981/2011.
5. In the meantime before the Assistant Educational Officer (AEO), the Manager had given an undertaking on 8.1.2010 that Tijo Thomas would be considered for appointment in the vacancy which arise after accommodating Sindhu.K.E. It was in this situation, both these schools brought under the corporate educational agency of the Manager with effect from 11.2.2010. It was still later that the vacancy of 30.11.2011 claimed by Smt. Tinta C. Varghese arose with effect from 30.11.2011. To that vacancy, apparently honouring the commitment given by the Manager on 8.1.2010, Sri Tijo Thomas was appointed
2204/2015 & 293/2016 5 with effect from 13.1.2012. However, that appointment was declined to be approved by the AEO on the ground that the same was made overlooking claimants under Rules 51A and 51B. This order was confirmed by the DPI and the Government. It was in these circumstances that asserting his entitlement to get approval of his appointment that Tijo Thomas filed W.P.(C) No.13016/2014.
6. All the four writ petitions were heard together. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge dismissed W.P.(C)No.2585/2011 filed by Sri Tijo Thomas and allowed W.P.(C) No. 16981/2011 filed by Sindhu K.E. Considering the prayer in W.P.(C)No.13016/201
