Lisa R vs The Aeo on 26 March, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 35698 of 2007(Y)


1. LISA R, UPSA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE AEO , VALAPPAD, PO. CHENTHRAPINNI
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

4. THE MANAGER CENTRAL UPS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.B.GANGESH

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :26/03/2008

 O R D E R
                          S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
                     =======================
                       W.P.(C) No.35698 of 2007
                     =======================

                 Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008


                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner was appointed as a UPSA by the 4th

respondent in his school on 5.6.2006 which was approved by the

1st respondent on 2.1.2007. He was also being paid salary

pursuant to that. However, by Ext.P3, an objection has been

raised to the petitioner’s continuance on the ground that

petitioner has been appointed in a post created by shifting a

UPSA as a LPSA which is not permissible under law. The

petitioner would contend that in view of Ext.P4, such shifting is

permissible, provided the teacher holds TTC. According to the

petitioner, the teacher appointed as LPSA possesses the

qualification for appointment as LPSA and therefore the shifting

of that teacher as LPSA and consequent appointment of the

petitioner as UPSA cannot be objected to.

2. The learned Government Pleader with the help of the

counter affidavit opposes the same.

W.P.(C) No.35698/2007 -2-

3. Of course, the petitioner has got a case that a

reading of counter affidavit shows that the 1st respondent in fact

accepts the contentions of the petitioner. However, in view of the

fact that in Ext.P3, there is a direction to the AEO to get the

matter clarified from the Director of Public Instruction. I

dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

The 1st respondent shall forward the papers regarding the

petitioner’s case to the Director of Public Instruction, the 3rd

respondent herein, within a period of two weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereupon, DPI shall take a

final decision on the question of validity of the appointment of the

petitioner and her eligibility for salary within a further period of

one month from the date of receipt of the papers from the 1st

respondent.

S.SIRI JAGAN,
JUDGE

jp