AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
W.P.(C).No.33881 of 2017 is filed by a teacher seeking directions to appoint her as UPSA in the 7th respondent school from 14.12.2014 to 24.07.2015 and to regularise the said period as duty. W.P.(C).No. 3575 of 2018 is filed by the Corporate Management of the schools in question challenging the order issued by the Government which is produced as Exhibit P18 in W.P.(C).No.33881 of 2017 on the short ground that the Manager was not heard before the said order was issued. The documents and parties are being referred to as arrayed in W.P.(C).No.33881 of 2017, unless otherwise specifically mentioned.
The petitioner had been appointed as HSA (Hindi) in one of the schools under the Corporate management on 2.6.2003. The said appointment was approved. In the academic year 2010-2011 there was a division fall and the petitioner was retrenched from 4.7.2010. The petitioner was thereafter appointed as UPSA from 15.7.2010 to 3.6.2012 and the said appointment was also approved. She was shifted to a Leave Without Allowance vacancy of HSA (Hindi) from 4.1.2011 to 13.12.2013 and the said appointment was approved by Exhibit P6. The leave vacancy was extended and the petitioner was permitted to continue as HSA (Hindi) from 14.12.2013 to 13.12.2014. Exhibit P9 order of approval was rendered. It is stated that the petitioner was retrenched on 13.12.2014 and by Ext.P10 order she had been appointed as UPSA on 25.7.2015. The said appointment was also approved. Thereafter, on 1.6.2016, the petitioner had been appointed as HSA but the said appointment is not approved.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the issue to be considered is with regard to the claim of the petitioner for appointment as UPSA from 13.12.2014 to 24.7.2015. The Government, by Exhibit P18 order held that the petitioner's appointment as UPSA from 25.7.2015 is liable to be approved. However, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation against an existing vacancy from 13.12.2014 to 24.7.2015 was not considered.
The Manager also assails the findings of Exhibit P18 Government Order on the ground that the Manager was not heard before such orders were issued.In the above factual situation, I am of the opinion that the issue of regularisation of service of the petitioner for the period from 13.12.2014 to 24.7.2015 is to be reconsidered by the Government with notice to all parties concerned. Since Exhibit P18 order has been issued without notice to the Manager and without considering the contentions advanced by the Manager, the same is not sustainable.
In the result, Ext.P18 order in W.P.(C).No.33881/2017, which is produced as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C).No. 3575/2018, is set aside. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent Government to take up the claim of appointment and approval of the petitioner as UPSA from 13.12.2014 to 24.7.2015 and consider and pass reasoned orders on the same after hearing all concerned and considering the contentions of the corporate manager as well within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Smt.Lijo Joseph, who was appointed by the Manager as UPSA, shall also be put on notice and heard before orders are passed by the 1st respondent, as directed above. Consequential benefits, if any, shall be released to the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has been appointed as HSA (Hindi) w.e.f. 1.6.2016 by Exhibit P20 order. If the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner as HSA (Hindi) from 1.6.2016 has been forwarded, the same shall be considered by the DEO within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the proposal is not forwarded the same shall immediately be forwarded by the Manager. The appointment shall be approved, if it is otherwise in order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.