V. Fousia vs The State of Kerala and Others

A.M. Shaffique, J—Petitioner has approached this Court dissatisfied by Ext. P9 by which the claim for approving her service with effect from 01/09/2004 has been rejected. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed in the School managed by the 5th respondent on 01/09/2004. Her appointment was not approved on the ground that protected teachers were not appointed. Appeal filed before the educational authorities were rejected and revision filed before the Government was also dismissed. Subsequently a review petition seems to have been filed by the petitioner which resulted in Ext. P1 order dated 03/06/2008 by which the petitioner''s appointment was approved with effect from 01/12/2006. Reference of Ext. P1 order would show that the petitioner was appointed as High School Assistant (Maths) with effect from 01/09/2004 in the MESHSS, Ponnani. When the educational authorities had rejected the appeals, review petition was filed. Her request in the review petition was for appointment at least from 22/11/2006 since one protected teacher in H.S.A (Maths) Smt. Sheeba. K.L. deployed to a Government school was absorbed in the M.E.S.H.S.S, Irimbiliyam with effect from 21/11/2006, another school under the same management. Therefore, the only request by the petitioner in the review petition was for approval effective from 22/11/2006. The Government, having considered the same, had formed an opinion that since a protected teacher was appointed in the school of the Corporate Manager, approved the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 01/12/2006. Against Ext. P1, the petitioner had filed another representation to the Government which resulted in Ext. P9.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent supporting the stand taken by the Government. It is inter alia stated that, in the review petition, the claim of the petitioner was only for approval of her service with effect from 22/11/2006 and having considered the fact that the Corporate Manager has already appointed a protected teacher, approval was granted with effect from 01/12/2006. The claim in respect of approval from 01/09/2004 had been rejected even earlier in terms of various orders passed by the Government and even in the appeal filed before the Government. The review was entertained only when it was pointed out that a protected teacher has been appointed. Under such circumstances, petitioner cannot claim any benefit for approval prior to 01/12/2006.

The learned counsel for the petitioner however relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Kerala Vs. Nadeera, (2013) 2 KLT 88 in order to contend that if the Department has not send the list of protected teachers, there is no obligation on the part of the management to appoint the protected teachers. True that such a proposition is well founded. But the manager has no case that no such list has been forwarded to them. That apart, it is clear from Ext. P1 that the review petition was entertained by the Government only under a special circumstance and that too when materials were available to show that protected teacher has been appointed. Even in Ext. P9, it is indicated that there was a protected teacher in Malappuram District during the aforesaid period and the petitioner cannot take a stand that the manager was not informed about the list of protected teachers. As already indicated, the management does not have such a case. Petitioner will not be in a position to state as to whether the department has informed the management about the list of protected teachers or not. Under such circumstances, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner cannot be the basis for granting any relief to her.

The facts being so, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled for any relief and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.