Back
2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 48251
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
NEETHI P – Appellant
Versus
SMITHA KOOVAKKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 21922/2011
Petitioners have the right to appeal employment decisions under educational statutes, and due process must be followed in resolving such disputes.
Headnote:
Employment - Educational Appointments - KER Chapter XIV-A Rule 51A - Writ Petition Disposed
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Assistant Educational Officer and sought a time-bound direction for the District Educational Officer to adjudicate an appeal regarding her employment as a Lower Primary School Assistant after her retrenchment and subsequent daily wage reappointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the District Educational Officer to consider the petitioner's appeal and make a decision within six weeks, emphasizing her rightful claim under the relevant educational rules and ensuring due process.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the appointment of another candidate and if the District Educational Officer's order should be reconsidered.
Ratio Decidendi: The statute allows the petitioner to appeal against the order, and the court recognized the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in educational employment matters.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed with directions to consider the appeal within six weeks.
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer which is produced as Ext.P7. Ext.P8 is a copy of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the District Educational Officer. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the District Educational Officer to pass appropriate orders within a time frame as it is apprehended that the Assistant Educational Officer will be approving the appointment hastily.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in the school on 08.06.2005 and Ext.P1 order shows that the said appointment was approved. The petitioner was retrenched from service with effect from 15.07.2007 after the staff fixation order in 2007-08 was issued. It is pointed out that subsequently two Lower Primary School Assistants retired from service on 31.03.2011. Later the Manager reappointed the petitioner as L.P.S.A on daily wages. It is stated that even now she is continuing. Another retirement vacancy arose on 31.03.2011 in the post of L.P.S.A and thereby a permanent vacancy arose on 01.06.2011. The petitioner claims that she is the rightful claimant under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A KER.
3. The rival claimant is the 4th respondent who is a B.Ed holder and the petitioner contends that she can claim appointment only as U.P School Assistant and not in the retirement vacancy in the lower primary section. Earlier the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.15383/2011 which was disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner, as per Ext.P6 judgment. Ext.P7 is a consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent whereby a direction is issued to the 3rd respondent Manager to appoint the
4th respondent.
In the light of the fact that the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy of filing an appeal, there will be a direction to the District Educational Officer to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 appeal, after hearing the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any appointment is made in the meanwhile of the 4th respondent and if any approval is granted thereafter, the same will be subject to the outcome of the appeal. The petitioner will forward a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 5th respondent for compliance.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp
