SEEJA K R Vs. STATE OF KERALA
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Seeja K R
STATE OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
P.V.Asha, J. -
(1.) Petitioner, who was appointed as a Lecturer in Physical Science in the 5th respondent Training College in the year 2005 and presently working as Assistant Professor in General Education, has filed this writ petition challenging the orders Exts.P7 and P12 by which the M.G University directed the manager to retain the petitioner in the post in Physical Science and to appoint the 6th respondent against the post in General Education.
(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer in Physical Science in the leave vacancy of Smt. Susmitha, the regular Lecturer in the post, for the period from 10.1.2005 to 31.1.2009. While continuing so, an additional post of Lecturer was sanctioned in the Physical Science in the year 2007-08, and thereupon her appointment was approved against the regular vacancy as per Ext.P2 order w.e.f 21.8.2007. Subsequently, the Principal Sri. Anil kumar, who was a General Education hand, retired from service on 31.03.2011. Consequent to this, a vacancy of Assistant Professor arose in General Education. Being a Post Graduate in Physical Science with M.Ed. in General Education, Ph.D and NET in Education and qualified for appointment against both the posts, petitioner requested the Manager to shift her to the post in General Education pointing out that there was dearth of students in Physical Science. The 5th respondent thereupon issued Ext.P4 order on 6.5.2011 shifting and appointing the petitioner as Assistant Professor in General Education w.e.f 2.5.2011. However, this shifting/appointment is not approved so far. None of the parties have a case as to whether approval was sought for the shifting or that approval was declined. At any rate, there is neither approval nor an order rejecting approval.
(3.) The 6th respondent- Smt. Saritha was selected for appointment against the leave without allowance vacancy of Smt. Susmitha, which the petitioner was occupying till her shifting against the regular post in 2007. She was appointed for the period from 10.12.2008 to 31.05.2009. When the 5th respondent notified vacancy in Physical Education and invited applications, she filed W.P.(C)No.19912 of 2009, seeking directions to the manager to appoint her. Since the Management contended that there were no vacancies, that writ petition was disposed of on 7.2.2011, directing that she shall be considered as and when vacancy arises in Physical Science or General Education. Thus since 2008, she has been after the management requesting to appoint her. Smt. Anitha, who was promoted as Principal, when Sri. Anilkumar retired on 31.3.2011, was a Natural Science hand. The 5th respondent appointed Smt.A.S.Suneethi as Assistant Professor in Natural Science in the vacancy of Dr. Anitha. The 6th respondent had filed W.P(c). No.14927/2011, praying for a direction to the respondents - the Principal and the Manager, to appoint her in any of the vacancies in the College, complaining that the management was denying appointment to her, by shifting the vacancies from one subject to another. She sought for appointment as Lecturer in Physical Science or in General Education as she is having the requisite qualification in both the subjects. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P15 judgment. As seen from para.5 of the judgment, the manager had filed a counter affidavit in that case, stating that there were 2 teachers in the college qualified to teach Physical Science - Smt.P.S.Susmitha and Seeja K.R (the petitioner herein). It was also stated that Seeja K.R had been shifted to the post of General Education for want of sufficient student strength to maintain 2 teachers in the optional subject Physical Science and that there were only 22 students for Physical Science. This Court thereupon found that there was no vacancy in the post of Physical Science or General Education and therefore it was not possible for this Court to issue any direction to the Manager to appoint the 6th respondent. However, the writ petition was disposed as per Ext.P15 judgment on 15.2.2013 directing that the 6th respondent shall be given appointment against the next arising vacancy in the post of Physical Science or General Education and directing that in case any such vacancy arose the management shall not shift the vacancy without appointing the petitioner. As against this judgment Ext.P15, the 6th respondent had filed a review petition on the basis of certain documents she subsequently received. The R.P was dismissed. The 6th respondent thereafter filed W.A.No.375/2014 against Ext.P15 judgment.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.