IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19085 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RAJI.S., RAJI BHAVANAM, SOUTH WEST, THAZHAVA, THAZHAVA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. THE MANAGER, A.P.M.U.P.SCHOOL, PAVUMBA SOUTH, PAVUMBA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP FOR R3 SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR FOR R3 SRI.SOORANAD S.SREEKUMAR FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 19085 of 2008-V --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as UPSA in A.P.M. U.P School, Pavumba, for the period from 13.8.2003 to 16.10.2003 in a leave vacancy for 65 days. The Assistant Educational Officer failed to approve the appointment stating that there was another Senior teacher under Rule 51A Claimant to be considered for appointment. The Manager preferred appeal before the DEO against the order rejecting the approval. The DEO allowed the appeal. The DEO held that the Rule 51A claimant Smt.Archana Padmanabhan continuing as UPSA in a leave vacancy from 3.6.2003 was terminated from service on the expiry of the leave period on 31.8.2003 and that at the time of appointment of the petitioner as UPSA from 13.8.2003, the senior claimant Smt.Archana Padmanabhan is in service. She was out of service from 1.9.2003 and therefore the order of the AEO requires interference. The appeal was allowed and a direction was issued to the AEO to approve the appointment of the petitioner against the leave vacancy. Exhibit P4 is the order passed by the DEO. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of Exhibit P4 order passed by the DEO, the Manager has not taken any steps to W.P(C) No. 19085 of 2008-V 2 forward the necessary proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner repeatedly requested the Manager to submit the appointment order of the petitioner and other papers along with the proposal. It is submitted by the petitioner that it shows that the Manager is deliberately withholding the appointment order without producing the same before the AEO for approval. The petitioner became Rule 51A claimant by virtue of her valid appointment for the aforesaid period. In the circumstances there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent Manager to forward the proposal along with the appointment order within a period of three weeks from today and the AEO shall pass orders within two weeks thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE ab W.P(C) No. 19085 of 2008-V 3 W.P(C) No. 19085 of 2008-V 4 W.P(C) No. 19085 of 2008-V 5 W.P(C) No. 19085 of 2008-V 6