IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 OP.No. 17746 of 2001(K) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S. VILASINI, K.A.P. VANAJA BHAVANAM, UCHAKKADA, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.S.SHYAM SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MANAGER, KARAKODE U.P. SCHOOL, KARODE P.O., PARASALA, TRIVANDRUM DIST. 2. SMT. JAYANTHI, HINDI TEACHER, KARAKODE U.P.SCHOOL, DO. DO. 3. ASST. EDUCATION OFFICER, PARASSALA P.O., TRIVANDRUM DIST. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA. 5. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR. ADV. SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM FOR R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 36160 OF 2003 THE COURT THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 17746/2001. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 14-8-1989. EXT.P2 ORDER DT. 30-3-1990. EXT.P3 JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO. 6819/1991. EXT.P4 REPRESENTATION DT. 29-3-1998. EXT.P5 REPRESENTATION DT. 29-3-1998. EXT.P6 JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO. 15753/1998. EXT.P7 ORDER DT. 6-11-1998. EXT.P8 APPEAL FILED BEFORE R4. EXT.P9 ORDER DT. 6-4-1999. EXT.P10 JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO. 3240/2000. EXT.P11 COMMUNICATION DT.19-7-2000. EXT.P12 ORDER DST. 17-2-2000. EXT.P13 REVISION OPETITION DT. 11-8-2000. EXT.P14 ORDER DT. 22-1-2001. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXT.R2(a) COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 22-6-1998. EXT.R2(b) DO. DT. 15-7-1999. EXT.R2(c)ORDER DT. 27-9-2001. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 17746 of 2001 & W. P (C) No. 36160 of 2003 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 24th March, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner in these two writ petitions is the same. The prayers in the writ petitions are also identical. The petitioner worked in Karakode U.P. School, Parassala in a leave vacancy from 14-8- 1989 to 27-10-1989, which appointment was not approved. She was again appointed in a retirement vacancy from 31-3-1990 till 1-8-1991. That appointment was also not approved. The petitioner raises a claim under Rule 51-A of the K.E.R based on that service. The petitioner's appointment was refused to be approved on the ground that another teacher having superior claim under Rule 51-A was awaiting appointment at the time of appointment of the petitioner. However, by Ext. P6 order in W.P(C) No. 36160/2003, the Government took a very lenient view and approved the appointment of the petitioner for the period from 14-8-1989 to 27-10-1989 and 1-6- 1990 to 31-7-1991 only for the purpose of payment of salary with the specific finding that the petitioner would not be eligible for a claim under Rule 51A. The petitioner now contends that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as a Hindi teacher in the said school in recognition of her preferential claim for appointment under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV of KER. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent in W.P(C) No. 36160/2003, who is the 2nd respondent in the other original petition. 3. It is settled law that only approved service can be considered for the purpose of deciding a claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV of K.E.R. Admittedly, the petitioner's appointments have O.P.17746/02 & W.P.C. 36160/03. -: 2 :- not been approved. In Ext. P6 order also, it has been categorically held that the petitioner is not entitled to approval of the service since another teacher having superior claim under Rule 51A was awaiting appointment at the relevant time. I am at a loss to understand how the Government could direct payment of salary for an unapproved teacher, which is not sanctioned by the KER. Whatever that be, in so far the petitioner's prior appointments had not been approved as required under the KER, she cannot have a rightful claim for preference in appointment under Rule 51A of the KER. Therefore, there is no merit in these two writ petitions and accordingly, they are dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/