IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 3685 of 1999(L)
1. C.S.ANITHA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. D.P.I.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI
For Respondent :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
Dated :23/11/2006
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------
O.P.No. 3685/1999
-------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2006.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has been appointed as H.S.A.(Maths) under the 4th
respondent on 11.6.1990 and she continued up to 14.8.1990 and that
appointment has been approved as per Ext.P9 proceedings of the
District Educational Officer, Kollam dated 9.10.2003. The third
respondent has been appointed as UPSA on 11.6.1990 and she
continued up to 20.8.1990 and thereafter form 3.11.1994 to 5.1.1995.
In the academic year 1994-95 an additional vacancy of H.S.A. (Maths)
was sanctioned. Being a Rule 51A claimant petitioner made request
for appointment. According to the third respondent, there was a
vacancy of UPSA also under the 4th respondent on 6.6.1994 and had
she been appointed as UPSA, she would have been promoted as
H.S.A. being a Rule 43 claimant. But the contention of the petitioner is
that the appointment of the third respondent as UPSA is only on
6.1.1995. Ext.P3 is the proceedings of the Manager dated
14.11.1995. Those proceedings have been issued pursuant to the
direction by the DPI in Ext.R3(a) dated 16.9.1995 wherein the claim
of the third respondent for deemed appointment from 6.6.1994 was
directed to be considered. In Ext.P3 the Manager found that there
OP.3685/1999 ..2..
was no post available to accommodate the third respondent and her
appointment can only be from 6.1.1995. Thereafter she was promoted
also to the post of H.S.A. (Maths) in the vacancy which arose on
3.7.1995. If that be so, there is no justification in making a claim for
appointment on 6.6.1994. That has been turned down by the
Manager as per Ext.P3 and that has become final also. The whole
confusion has been created by the Manager in issuing conflicting
orders. In view of the finality attributed to Ext.P3 wherein the
eligibility of the third respondent for appointment as UPSA has been
found to be only from 6.1.1995, she could not have aspired for a
further claim for appointment from 6.6.1994. I quash Exts.P4 and P5.
Petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed as H.S.A. (Maths)
as per Ext.P1 validly. All the consequential benefits shall be disbursed
to the petitioner, if not disbursed, within a period of one month from
the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
pmn/ JUDGE
KURIAN JOSEPH,J.
OP.NO.3685/1999
JUDGMENT
23rd November,2006.