IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28223 of 2007(I)
1. K.SADATH, MYLISSERY, CHERIYA KUMBALAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE MANAGER, M.I.U.P.SCHOOL, KUTTIADI,
4. P.JAMEELA, ASSISTANT TEACHER,
5. PREMANAND, M.I.U.P.SCHOOL, KUTTIADI,
6. SAREENA K.K., M.I.U.P.SCHOOL,
7. SHYAMA, M.I.U.P.SCHOOL, KUTTIADI,
8. SHEEJA, M.I.U.P.SCHOOL, KUTTIADI,
For Petitioner :SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
For Respondent :SRI.B.KRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :20/11/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.28223/2007
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is an Arabic Teacher, who has approved
service under the 3rd respondent, for various spells of time.
The last spell of his service was for the period from
15.7.2001 t0 14.7.2006. During this period of his
employment, the petitioner got himself implicated in a
criminal case and was arrested on 28.7.2001. He was
enlarged on bail on 1.10.2001. By Ext.P1 order dated
6.10.2001, based on Ext.P2 letter of the AEO, the Manager
issued notice removing him from service with effect from
28.7.2001.
2. He challenged Ext.P2 and ultimately the Government
by Ext.P3 order confirmed Ext.P2. During this period
petitioner was contesting the criminal case and finally by
WP(c).No.28223/07 2
judgment dated 29.8.2006 in S.C.No.705/2003, it is stated
that he was acquitted by the Sessions court and that
judgment has been confirmed by this court in
Crl.R.P.No.1809/06 by judgment dated 18.12.2006.
3. Meanwhile claiming reinstatement petitioner filed
O.P.No.35469/2002 before this court. That Original Petition
was disposed of directing the petitioner to represent the
matter before the Government. It is stated that,
accordingly he filed Ext.P5, which was disposed of by Ext.P6
order dated 11.7.2009. Though in Ext.P6, the Government
held that, the review is not maintainable as Ext.P3 was not
an original order, still it was clarified that the petitioner will
be entitled for appointment in future as provided under Rule
51-A of Chapter XIV-A KER. It is at this stage, the
petitioner filed this writ petition, seeking to quash Exts.P1,
P2,P3 and P6 and to direct the respondents to reinstate him.
4. Admittedly, the service of the petitioner up to
14.7.2001 was approved service. Though he was again
WP(c).No.28223/07 3
appointed on 15.7.2001, during this period of service, he
was arrested in a criminal case and consequently by Ext.P1
he was removed from service with effect from 28.7.2001.
Though this service may not be of any assistance to the
petitioner to claim the benefit of Rule 51-A, still having
regard to the fact that the petitioner has previous approved
service, Government granted the benefit of Rule 51-A
Chapter XIV-A KER as put forth in Ext.P6. In my view, the
petitioner has been rightly granted the benefit in Ext.P6.
Petitioner now contends that, his claim for the benefit
of Rule 51-A having been recognized in Ext.P6, he ought to
have been considered against the vacancies to which
respondents 4 to 10 were appointed. Obviously, his claim
for the benefit of Rule 51-A was recognized only by Ext.P6
dated 11.7.2007 and the aforesaid appointees were all
appointed prior to that Government Order. In my view, it is
alson not possible to disturb their appointment as Ext.P6
order was passed without notice to those appointees.
WP(c).No.28223/07 4
Therefore, the petitioner’s claim will have to be confined to
the next arising suitable vacancy in which case the Manager
shall consider the petitioner’s candidature against that
vacancy.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
vi.
WP(c).No.28223/07 5