Anitha Kuttappan vs State Of Kerala

Anu Sivaraman, J

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers: -

i. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing P2(b), P3, P4 and P5.

ii. Declare that the vacancy against which the petitioner was appointed is not liable to be set apart for absorption of protected teachers and that she is entitled to

approval w.e.f 19.06.2017 as LPSA in respect of P1 appointment.

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate directions directing the respondents to accept P2(a) declaration of the Manager setting apart the vacancy arising

w.e.f 31.03.2020 for absorption of protected teachers, for the purpose of P6 Government order dated 06.02.2021.

iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate directions directing the AEO, Thodupuzha to approve the appointment of the petitioner as LPSA w.e.f 19.06.2017 and

grant all consequential benefits.

v. Or in the alternative direct the 1st respondent Government to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 revision petition pending before the Government within a

time limit prescribed by this Hon’ble Court after hearing the petitioner and the Manager of the school.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as LPST in the 5th respondent’s

school on 19.06.2017. The appointment has not been approved so far. It is submitted that, in the meanwhile, the Manager had made several other

appointments as well. The Manager has, thereafter, withdrawn the petitioner’s appointment and submitted Ext.P3 request for approval of the

same to set apart the said post for appointment of a protected teacher. It is submitted that Ext.P6 Government Order has been issued directing

approval of appointments made from 2016 to 2019 on condition that the Manager submits a declaration that he would set apart one vacancy to absorb

a protected teacher in future. It is submitted that, as against the action of the Manager in withdrawing the petitioner’s appointment and keeping

apart the post to which she was appointed for appointing a protected teacher, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P10 revision petition and seeks a

consideration of the same.

The learned Government Pleader submits that several other appointments had been made by the Manager and that any orders on Ext.P10 revision

petition will prejudice the appointees between 2016 and 2020, who have got benefit of the withdrawal of the petitioner’s appointment and the

reservation of the said post for appointing the protected teacher.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no protected teacher has been appointed and the petitioner is continuing against the post to

which she was appointed on 19.06.2017.

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I notice that the 5th respondent has been served with notice in the writ petition, but there is no

appearance.

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that Ext.P10 revision petition preferred by the petitioner before the Government is liable to be

considered with notice to the petitioner, the Manager as well as any other teacher, who is likely to be affected by the orders to be passed thereon.

In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on Ext.10 revision petition with

notice to the petitioner, the Manager as well as all other teachers, who are likely to be affected by orders to be passed on Ext.P10 revision petition and

after hearing them through any appropriate means including video conferencing within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.