IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 1199 of 2007(P) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, S.N.U.P.S., POOKODE, VARAKKARA P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. SHINY YOHANNAN, D/O.YOHANNAN, THEKKETHALA HOUSE, PARAPPOOKKARA POST, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------- 1. GOVT. OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. ADDL. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (GENERAL), TRIVANDRUM. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TRICHUR. 4. ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHERPU, TRICHUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.1199/2007 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER DT.8.7.2004 PASSED BY THE 1st PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER DT.17.2.05, NO.C-2506/04/K.DIS. PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF ORDER DT.16.4.05 NO.C-820/05/L.DIS. PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF ORDER DT.12.9.05 NO.B1-2358/05/K.DIS. PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF ORDER DT.21.4.06 NO.F2/2925/06/DPI/K.DIS PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF REVISION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF ORDER DT.12.10.06 NO.53702/B2/06/GE. PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF SENIORITY LIST OF THE SCHOOL AS ON 1.1.2005. COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2004-05. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE dsn T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.1199 of 2007 -------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT The first petitioner is the Manager of a school and the second petitioner is the teacher appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in the school. The second petitioner herein is aggrieved by the orders passed by the various authorities rejecting the approval of appointment. 2. The case of the second petitioner is that she was appointed in a resignation vacancy of one Smt.E.P.Jeena, who resigned from service on 5.3.2004. Initially, in Exhibit P2 the view taken is that the Manager has failed to submit the copy of the approved resignation letter of Smt.E.P.Jeena, UPSA. An appeal filed against the same was rejected by Exhibit P4 and a further appeal was also rejected by the Additional Director of Public Instruction as per Exhibit P6. Therein the view taken is that during 2004-05, one post of UPSA is reduced due to the division fall in the UP Section and as such there is no vacancy to W.P.(C)No.1199/07 -2- provide the petitioner. 3. The revision petition filed before the Government also resulted in an adverse order against the second petitioner. 4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the staff fixation order for the year 2004-05 will show that there were sanctioned posts of UPSAs and one post of Headmaster and the Headmaster who is a TTC qualified person was taking classes for L.P.Section and therefore the petitioner was accommodated against the one post of UPSA. 6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the said contention cannot be accepted. In the staff fixation order, what is mentioned is that one post of UPSA was abolished due to reduction of one division in Standard V and the juniormost teacher Smt.E.P.Geethanjali is absorbed in the vacancy of Smt.E.P.Jeena who resigned from service on 4.3.2004. Therefore, obviously, the vacancy consequent on the resignation of Smt.E.P.Jeena is not available for the second petitioner. It is also contended that the Headmaster cannot be accommodated as LPSA. In the counter affidavit, it is explained in paragraph No.6 W.P.(C)No.1199/07 -3- that the Manager has not changed the status of the Headmaster before issuing the staff fixation order for the year 2004-05. Therefore, evidently, there is no post to accommodate the second petitioner and the orders refusing the grant approval cannot therefore be assailed successfully. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. But, this will not stand in the way of the petitioners seeking for the benefit of the new package order issued by the Government and if an appropriate representation is filed, the same will be duly considered by the Government. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn