IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15383 of 2011(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NEETHI.P. (LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT-RETRENCHED), KOZHUR UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, P.O.ERUVALLY-670 647. BY ADV. SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY NORTH, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 101. 3. THE MANAGER, KOZHUR UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, ERUVALLY P.O-670 647. 4. SMITHA KOOVAKKA, `BHAVANA', P.O.ERUVALLY-670 647. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. NISHA BOSE, R4 BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.K.E.HAMZA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.15383/2011-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER AS UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT IN KOZHUR UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL FROM 08/06/2005 AND APPROVAL OF THE SAME. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS/B/3562/07 DTD. 13/7/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION ORDER NO.26327/J3/2000/G. EDN. DTD. 26/06/2000. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 31/05/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.15383/2011-W ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 16th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is claiming the benefit of Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A Kerala Education Rules for appointment under the third respondent-Manager. She is seeking for a direction to the third respondent to reappoint her as Lower Primary School Assistant in the existing vacancy of L.P.S.A in Kozhur Upper Primary School, Eruvally. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in the school from 08/06/2005 in a regular division vacancy and the appointment was approved as evident from Ext.P1 order. The petitioner was retrenched from service along with another teacher, namely, Shri M.Babu Bijith when the staff fixation was taken up for the year 2007-08. Later, the petitioner was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant in a short term leave vacancy. It is stated that the said appointment was also approved on daily wage basis for the academic year 2010-11. Consequent on the retirement of the concerned teacher, a permanent post W.P.(C). No.15383/2011 -:2:- of L.P.S.A arose in the school from 01/06/2011 onwards, to which the petitioner is claiming appointment. 2. It is the complaint of the petitioner that overlooking the claim of the petitioner, the fourth respondent's claim is being considered by the Manager. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is pointed out that the fourth respondent is a Rule 51A claimant in the category of U.P.S.A and her regular service was from 02/06/2004 to 14/07/2009, whereas the petitioner's regular service was from 08/06/2005 to 14/07/2007. Accordingly, it is contended that the petitioner is not eligible for reappointment overlooking the claim of the fourth respondent. It is further pointed out that there was nine established and sanctioned posts [4 L.P.S.As and 5 U.P.S.As] in the school. Out of the nine posts, 5 existing teachers were originally appointed as L.P.S.As and they have been working as L.P.S.As except one Smt.Nalini Valluva who is a B.Ed holder. The details of L.P.S.As and U.P.S.As have been stated in para.7 of the counter affidavit. Accordingly, it is contended that the fourth respondent is Rule 51A claimant. It is further W.P.(C). No.15383/2011 -:3:- pointed out by the learned counsel for the said respondent that in W.P.(C).No.15540/2011 filed by the fourth respondent, this Court has already directed the Assistant Educational Officer, namely, the second respondent herein to take a decision after hearing all the parties. 3. In the light of the above also, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the claims raised by the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent, after hearing the petitioner, the Manager and the fourth respondent and any other affected parties as already directed in W.P.(C).No.15540/2011. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms