PRASEETHA M. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was initially appointed on 4.6.2012 as UPSA as per Ext.P1 appointment order dated 4.6.2012 issued by the 4th respondent Manager of the Aided School concerned. The said appointment covered by Ext.P -1 was made as against a vacancy in the sanctioned post of UPSA which arose on account of the promotion of the incumbent (one Sri.T.P.Surendran) holding that post to the higher category of HSST. It is also pointed out that the said post of UPSA was also admitted as per the staff fixation order for the year concerned issued by the third respondent DEO, Thirurangadi. The Manager submitted necessary proposal for approval of the said appointment of the petitioner which was declined by the third respondent DEO and the matter was then taken up in appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram in which the said Appellate Authority as per Ext.P -2 order dated 12.11.2012 had found that the promotion of the aforementioned Sri.T.P.Surendran as HSST was approved and therefore the vacancy in the post of UPSA was in existence and further that the appointments of seniors was rejected, the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as UPSA cannot be granted etc. Challenging Ext.P -2 Appellate order, the matter was taken up in revision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV (A) KER before the first respondent State Government. The State Government considered the said revision and passed Ext.P4 revisional order dated 20.3.2014 wherein it is clearly found in para 4 thereof, that based on the available records, as the appointments of the senior teachers and the aforementioned Sri.T.P.Surendran has been duly approved, there are no valid grounds to decline the approval of appointments of the petitioner as UPSA. It is further found therein by the Government that the posts that were in existence in the academic year 2010 -11 could be continued in the subsequent academic years of 2011 -12 & 2012 -13 and accordingly directed the appointment of the petitioner as UPSA from 4.6.2012, could be approved by the Director of Public Instructions/Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram, if it is otherwise in order. Thereafter the matter was re -considered by the 3rd respondent DEO, who as per the impugned proceedings dated 27.6.2014 referred to in Ext.P -5, had ordered that the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as UPSA could be granted with effect from 3.6.2013(not with effect from 4.6.2012), in compliance with Ext.P4 G.O.(Rt).No.1356/14/G.Edn dated 20.3.2014. The aforesaid decision of the DEO referred to in Ext.P -5 was further challenged in Rule 8 A Chapter XIV A KER before the 2nd respondent (Director of Public Instructions. The second respondent DPI as per impugned Ext.P -6 order dated 31.12.2014 refused to interfere with the said impugned decision of the DEO referred to in Ext.P -5 on the ground that the appointment of another UPSA (one Smt.P.P.Sheeba) has been approved only with effect from 3.6.2013 and therefore the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as UPSA also could be granted only with effect from 3.6.2013 and not from the anterior date of 4.6.2012. It is these decisions at Ext.P -6 and the one referred to in Ext.P -5 that is under challenge in the instant writ petition. The following are the prayers sought for in the present writ petition: -

(2.) Heard Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents 1 to 3.

(3.) Though notice on R4 Manager has been duly completed, none appeared on behalf of the 4th respondent. It is pointed out to this Court that the 4th respondent Manager is fully supporting the cause of the petitioner as he was the one who made the appointment of the petitioner as UPSA with effect from 4.6.2012 as evident from Ext.P -1.