IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20058 of 2010(F)
1. O.T.INDIRAMMA, AGED 49,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE MANAGER,
4. SMT.SHEEJA, H.S.A.,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.HARIDAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :28/06/2010
O R D E R
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 20058 of 2010 F
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was appointed as Upper Primary School
Teacher under the third respondent’s School for different periods.
Those appointments were approved as per Exts.P1 to P3 orders.
Subsequently, the petitioner was retrenched for want of vacancy. The
contention of the petitioner is that by virtue of Exts.P1 to P3, the
petitioner is entitled to get reappointment as and when vacancy arises in
the school. However, ignoring her legitimate claim under Rule 51A of
Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules, the fourth respondent was
appointed against a vacancy that occurred on 01-04-2010. Challenging
the order whereby the fourth respondent was appointed against the
aforesaid vacancy ignoring her claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A
of the KER, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 appeal dated 05-05-2010
before the second respondent. According to the petitioner, any further
delay in the disposal of Ext.P5 appeal would detrimentally affect the
petitioner. It is in the said circumstances this writ petition has been filed.
2. Exts.P1 to P3 would reveal that the appointments of the
petitioner under the third respondent’s school were duly approved by the
authorities. Necessarily, in such circumstances, before filling up any
WPC.20058/2010
: 2 :
vacancy occurred subsequently, the claim of the petitioner under Rule
51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules requires
consideration. It is in the said context that the petitioner has challenged
the appointment of the fourth respondent, a fresh hand, contending that
her legitimate claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the KER was
overlooked. When such a grievance is raised before a competent
authority, the said authority is bound to look into and pass orders
thereon. Admittedly, Ext.P5 appeal is still pending before the second
respondent.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on
Ext.P5 appeal preferred by the petitioner, expeditiously, at any rate,
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, with notice to the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4. Any
approval of appointment of the fourth respondent against the vacancy
that occurred on 01-04-2010 will be subject to the orders to be passed
in Ext.P5 appeal.
Sd/-
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge