ALEYAMMA Vs. SOSAMMA
LAWS(KER)-1974-10-24
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on October 11,1974

ALEYAMMA Appellant
VERSUS
SOSAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.K.NARENDRAN,J. - (1.) THE ,question that arises for consideration in this Original Petition is one of considerable importance as far as Aided School Teachers are concerned.A specialist teacher was also qualified for the post of Lower Primary School Assistant.Then a vacancy of Lower Primary School Assistant arose in the school and the specialist teacher was appointed in that post and in the specialist post that fell vacant one who was fully qualified for the post was appoin­ted and both the appointments were approved.Sometime later due to reduction in the number of divisions the specialist teacher who got appointment as a Primary School Assistant became surplus.Then the question is whether the qualified teacher working as specialist teacher can be relieved and the Lower Primary School Assistant who became surplus can be again posted as specialist teacher in that post.
(2.) THE 1 st respondent while working as a full -time sewing teacher in the M.T.L.P.School,Kanakappalam was deputed for T.T.C.Course.In the above training vacancy the petitioner was appointed as specialist teacher(sewing ).When the 1st respondent returned after training,the petitioner was relieved on 31st March 1965.On 1st June 1966 the first respondent was confirmed as sewing teacher.Then in 1967 -68 a regular vacancy of L.P.S.A.arose in the school and the 1st respondent was appointed as L.P.S.A.and the appointment of the 1st respondent in that substantive vacancy was approved by the department.In the.vacancy of the specialist sewing teacher that arose,the petitioner was appointed on 2nd November 1967.That appointment also was duly approved.Some years later in the year 1972 -73 for want of strength one class division was abolished and the 1st respondent who was the juniormost L.P.S.A.was thrown out. It seems that the 1st respondent complained to the department and the 2nd respondent District Educational Officer,Kanjirappally passed Ext.P -1 order,dated 27th September 1972 directing that the 1st respondent be reinstated in service as sewing teacher by retrenching the peti­tioner.Against Ext.P -1 order the petitioner filed Ext.P -2 revision petition before the 5th respondent,Stat of Kerala and the 5th respondent by Ext.P -3 order,dated 18th August 1973 ordered that the 1st respondent will have to be reverted to her original post of sewing teacher and the peti­tioner will have to be retrenched from service.There is a confusion in the Original Petition whether the school in question is a L.P.School or a U.P.School.What is seen from Ext.P -3 order is that the post which the 1st respondent was holding was that of a U.P.School Assistant.In that case,the school can be only a U.P.School.But from the description of the parties in the Original Petition it is seen that the school in question is a L.P.School and that the 1st respondent is a L.P.School Assistant.I am at a loss to understand as to how this confusion has arisen.Whether it is a L.P.School or a U.P.School,the position will be the same and for the purpose of deciding this case it is not necessary to ascertain whether the school in question is a U.P.School or a L.P.School.
(3.) IT is seen from the averments in the Original Petition that from the year 1973 -74 onwards the 1st respon­dent is working as a L.P.S.A.because there arose a vacancy of L.P.S.A.in the school and in that vacancy the 1st respondent was appointed.So,the only question is whether the retrenchment of the.petitioner in the year 1972 -73 and the consequent posting of the 1st respondent as sewing teacher was justified.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.