VASANTHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is the appellant and the respondents in the writ petition are the respondents herein. The point that arises for decision in this Writ Appeal is whether a claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules (K.E.R.) will be lost, if the claimant gets appointment in another school, though the said appointment was not approved by the competent authority for want of qualification and as a result, the incumbent was thrown out of that employment.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are the following: The appellant was duly qualified for appointment to the post of Upper Primary School Assistant (U.P.S.A.). The third respondent, who is the Manager of A.U.P.S, Padinjarathara, appoint the appellant in his School as U.P.S.A. in a leave vacancy on 5-6-2000. She was retrenched from service on the termination of the leave vacancy on 17-10-2000. The said appointment was duly approved by the second respondent Assistant Education Officer (A.E.O.), Vythiri. By virtue of Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the K.E.R., which deals with the right of retrenched teachers concerning preference for appointment in future vacancies, the appellant had a claim for appointment to the vacancies, the appellant had a claim for appointment to the vacancies that may arise in the school in future, provided she has not been appointed in a permanent vacancy in a school under some other educational agency.

(3.) While so, a vacancy in the post of U.P.S.A arose in the third respondent's school on 1 -6-2001. A senior claimant under Rule 51A was appointed in that vacancy. Another vacancy in the said post arose on 15-7-2001. Instead of appointing the appellant, a fresh hand from the open market was appointed in that vacancy as U.P.S.A by the Manager. Soon thereafter, the appellant got appointment as Higher Secondary School Teacher (H.S.S.T.) (Junior) is Sanskrit in Jayasree Higher Secondary School, Kalluvyal on 2-8-2001. The appellant was not considered for appointment by the third respondent, for the reason of a relinquishment letter dated 6-6-2001 given by her, a copy of which was produced in the writ petition as Ext.p7. According to the appellant, the said letter was obtained by the Manager under threat and coercion at the time of her initial appointment.