IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 WA.No. 2140 of 2005 ----------------------------- JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.1308/2005 DATED 01/07/2005 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- G.SETHULAKSHMI, U.P.S.A., GANDHI SMARAKA HIGH SCHOOL, ASHTAMICHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN, ADV. SMT.S.LAKSHMY. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA. 4. JAYASREE M., H.S.A. (MALAYALAM), GANDHI SMARAKA HIGH SCHOOL, ASHTAMICHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K. SANDESH RAJA FOR R1 TO R3, ADV. SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN FOR R2. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.2140 OF 2005 ------------------------------------- Dated 19th August, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Fourth respondent was appointed as U.P.S.A on 29.8.1983. She was promoted as H.S.A. on 2.8.1999. The writ petitioner, a Rule 51-A claimant, was appointed as UPSA on 10.6.2003. The question is that if there is excess teacher, who will be thrown out. Since there was reduction in staff strength of H.S.A. in the staff fixation order, the fourth respondent became excess and she was deployed. On a representation it was found that she is entitled to be reverted as UPSA and the writ petitioner was therefore retrenched. As a UPSA, the fourth respondent has more than 20 years' service than the writ petitioner. Therefore, admittedly, the fourth respondent is much senior and she cannot be sent away from the school and the writ petitioner being the junior most automatically will have to be retrenched. We are also told that subsequently, when the vacancy arose, the writ petitioner was again appointed as UPSA and she got back the employment. Petitioner relies on Annexure A1 Government Order which clearly shows as follows: “3. On the basis of the above verdict Government are pleased to clarify that in the event of want of vacancy, the incumbents promoted under Rule 43, Chapter XIV A KER will be liable to be reverted to the post from which he was promoted, on the basis of first come last go. If there is no vacancy to accommodate him in the lower category, he will be accommodated after reverting the juniormost hand in that category. In the W.A.2140/2005 2 case of High School Assistant (Core subjects) the reversion will be effected strictly observing the subject ratio requirement.” That shows that when there is excess hand in H.S.A., the fourth respondent has to be reverted as UPSA. Actually, Annexure A2 only clarifies that for counting service seniority, Primary and High School services should be considered. Annexure A3 only provides that Annexure A2 will prevail over the orders issued with regard to reversion in Annexure A1. We are of the view that those Government Orders also will not come to the rescue of the writ petitioner. The impugned Government Order is in accordance with Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. We fully agree with the views of the learned single Judge. Therefore, we are not reiterating the same. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE tks