IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 17746 of 2001(K)
1. S.VILASINI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MR.M.C.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.SUKUMARAN
For Respondent :SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :24/03/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
O.P. No. 17746 of 2001
&
W. P (C) No. 36160 of 2003
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 24th March, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner in these two writ petitions is the same. The
prayers in the writ petitions are also identical. The petitioner worked
in Karakode U.P. School, Parassala in a leave vacancy from 14-8-
1989 to 27-10-1989, which appointment was not approved. She was
again appointed in a retirement vacancy from 31-3-1990 till 1-8-1991.
That appointment was also not approved. The petitioner raises a
claim under Rule 51-A of the K.E.R based on that service. The
petitioner’s appointment was refused to be approved on the ground
that another teacher having superior claim under Rule 51-A was
awaiting appointment at the time of appointment of the petitioner.
However, by Ext. P6 order in W.P(C) No. 36160/2003, the
Government took a very lenient view and approved the appointment of
the petitioner for the period from 14-8-1989 to 27-10-1989 and 1-6-
1990 to 31-7-1991 only for the purpose of payment of salary with the
specific finding that the petitioner would not be eligible for a claim
under Rule 51A. The petitioner now contends that the petitioner is
entitled to be appointed as a Hindi teacher in the said school in
recognition of her preferential claim for appointment under Rule 51A
of Chapter XIV of KER.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 5th
respondent in W.P(C) No. 36160/2003, who is the 2nd respondent in
the other original petition.
3. It is settled law that only approved service can be
considered for the purpose of deciding a claim under Rule 51A of
Chapter XIV of K.E.R. Admittedly, the petitioner’s appointments have
O.P.17746/02 & W.P.C. 36160/03. -: 2 :-
not been approved. In Ext. P6 order also, it has been categorically
held that the petitioner is not entitled to approval of the service since
another teacher having superior claim under Rule 51A was awaiting
appointment at the relevant time. I am at a loss to understand how
the Government could direct payment of salary for an unapproved
teacher, which is not sanctioned by the KER. Whatever that be, in so
far the petitioner’s prior appointments had not been approved as
required under the KER, she cannot have a rightful claim for
preference in appointment under Rule 51A of the KER.
Therefore, there is no merit in these two writ petitions and
accordingly, they are dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/