P.M. Bindu vs The State of Kerala and Others

S. Siri Jagan, J.—The Petitioner was appointed as a High School Assistant (Mathematics) for the period from 4.7.2001 to 2.6.2004 in a leave vacancy of another teacher by name Smt. Nisha. That appointment was approved by the DEO only for the period up to 10.3.2004. In the meanwhile Smt. Nisha sought to cancel her unavailed portion of Leave Without Allowances and to rejoin duty. By Ext.P2, the Government refused permission to rejoin duty at the fag end of the academic year and by Ext.P3 order permitted her to rejoin duty on 2.6.2004. The Manager forwarded a proposal to appoint the Petitioner for the period from 11.3.2004 to 1.6.2004 in continuation of her earlier appointment upto 10.3.2004. That was rejected on the ground that the appointment for the period beyond 31.3.2004 cannot be approved. The Petitioner challenges that order seeking the following reliefs:

a) Call for the records relating to Exhibits P-4, P-5, P-6 and P-8 and quash the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 4th Respondent District Educational Officer, Palakkad to approve the appointment of the Petitioner as High School Assistant (Maths) from 4-7-2001 to 2-6-2004 and disburse the salary and allowances from 11-3-2004 to 2-6-2004 forthwith.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondents wherein the Respondents have sought to sustain the impugned orders on the ground that the Petitioner did not work since the Petitioner was relieved from service on 10.3.2004.

I have considered the rival contentions in detail. It is not disputed before me by the Petitioner that the Petitioner is entitled to salary only upto 31.3.2004. In order to prove that the Petitioner had actually worked for the period from 11.3.2004 to 31.3.2004, the Petitioner has produced an extract from the staff attendance register of the School in this writ petition attested by the Headmaster of the School as Ext.P9, wherein it is seen that the Petitioner had in fact worked upto 31.3.2004 also. More importantly, it shows that the Petitioner was actually on SSLC duty for the period from 10.3.2004 to 25.3.2004. In view of the said document, I am not inclined to accept the contentions of the Respondents that the Petitioner was relieved on 10.3.2004, especially since the Petitioner was assigned SSLC duty in some other School by the Government themselves. Therefore, I am of opinion that the Petitioner''s appointment should have been approved for the period from 11.3.2004 to 31.3.2004.

Accordingly, Exts.P4, P5, P6 and P8 are quashed. It is declared that the Petitioner is entitled to have her appointment approved for the period from 11.3.2004 to 31.3.2004. She is entitled to salary and allowances for that period. Orders in this regard shall be passed by the 4th Respondent and arrears of salary paid to the Petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.