Reema R And Ors vs Guruvayur Devaswom And Ors

The issue, which arises for consideration in these writ petitions is with regard to the cancellation of appointment of the petitioners as UPSA in the school managed by the Guruvayur Devaswom.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the Guruvayur Devaswom.

In W.P.(C) No.16179 of 2020, the petitioner contends that she was appointed as U.P.S.A in the school by Ext.P7 appointment order dated 12.06.2020. It is submitted that a notification had been issued on 16.10.2019 inviting applications for appointment of U.P.S.A, H.S.A and Physical Education Teacher. A selection was conducted and a ranked list was published wherein the petitioner in W.P.(C) No16179/2020 was included as Sl.No.3 while the petitioners in the other writ petition were included as Sl.Nos.4 and 5 respectively. It is stated that there were only two vacancies notified. However, by Ext.P6 letter, the 4th respondent addressed the 3rd respondent - Manager for permission to make appointments from the existing list to the arising vacancies as well. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16179/2020 that there was one vacancy of U.P.S.A, which arose due to a retirement on 31.03.2020 and it was against the said retirement vacancy that the petitioner was appointed by Ext.P7 order. It is submitted that when the petitioner approached the respondents for joining duty, she was told that her appointment order was cancelled. Ext.P9 is the communication issued to the petitioner. It is stated in Ext.P9 that the vacancy to which the petitioner was appointed was not in existence and that the earlier decision of the GDMC dated 12.06.2020 had been cancelled by Ext.P10 resolution dated 15.06.2020.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16179 of 2020 would contend that a complaint raised with regard to the appointments as also Ext.P10 resolution only covered the action of the Managing Committee and the Administrator in having sought to fill up vacancies, which had not yet arisen, from the existing ranked list. It is submitted that the allegation was only with regard to the appointments made against the vacancies of U.P.S.A, which were to arise only in future on account of promotions being effected to the post of H.S.A. It is submitted that, in the petitioner's case, the vacancy to which the petitioner was appointed was an existing vacancy of U.P.S.A and that as such, she is eligible to be appointed against the said vacancy.

The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.16927/2020 had been appointed against the anticipated vacancies of U.P.S.A on account of the promotions to the post of H.S.A. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.16927/2020 that the Managing Committee had considered the request of the Headmaster and had taken a resolution to fill up the arising vacancies also from the existing ranked list. It is submitted that since the list was in force, there was absolutely no illegality in appointments being made from the list to arising and anticipated vacancies as well. It is contended that the action of the respondents in having cancelled the order of appointment, without hearing the petitioners, who had already been issued with appointment orders, is completely illegal, unjust and arbitrary. It is stated that it was only on account of the fact that a complaint had been raised that the appointment has been cancelled.

A counter affidavit has been placed on record in these writ petitions by the respondents 1 to 3. It is submitted that the initial notification had been issued specifically for filling up of one vacancy of H.S.A, two vacancies of U.P.S.A and one vacancy of Physical Education Teacher in the school. It is admitted that Ext.P2 list was prepared in which six persons were included for appointment to the post of U.P.S.A. However, it is contended that since the notification was only for appointment of two persons from the said list, the list stood expired and no more appointments could have been made therefrom. It is contended that, by Ext.P3, the Committee had specifically decided that the list prepared pursuant to Ext.P1 notification would be valid for the purpose of appointments to the notified vacancies alone. It is, therefore, contended that the decision taken by Ext.P4 to make appointments from the list against arising and anticipated vacancies was completely untenable. It is submitted that the said decision had been rendered on the basis of a request made by the Headmistress, which was apparently recommended by the Administrator and that the said decision has been cancelled by Ext.P10. It is further contended that several complaints had been received with regard to the extension of the ranked list to vacancies other than those notified and that the said malpractice had been done only to accommodate the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16179/2020, who is the wife of a member of the Managing Committee. It is, therefore, contended that the cancellation of the orders of appointment are fully legal and valid.

The learned Government Pleader also supported the stand of the management and submitted that a ranked list, which was prepared for filling up the notified vacancies alone could not have been extended or operated for filling up of later vacancies as well.

I have considered the contentions advanced. Ext.P1 notification produced along with W.P.(C) No.16179/2020 would show that the notification was inviting applications to the specified vacancies. There were two vacancies of U.P.S.A, which was notified. Ext.P2 list was prepared pursuant to Ext.P1 for filling up the notified vacancies alone. Ext.P3 decision was taken as early as on 31.12.2019 that the rank list would be operated for the purpose of filling up the notified vacancy alone. Therefore, with the appointment of two persons, the list stood expired. Thereafter, by Ext.P5, it appears that a decision was taken to extend the period of the list and to make appointments therefrom. Ext.P6 letter was issued by the Headmistress to the Manager seeking appointments from the list. It appears that the appointment orders were issued on the basis of the said request. However, it is clear that on 15.06.2020, the managing committee had again considered the matter. It was found that the decision taken to extend the list was not proper and the appointments made on the basis of the extension was without considering the factual aspects of the matter. The decision to give further appointments from Ext.P2 list was, therefore, cancelled. The Administrator had specifically stated that the procedure for giving appointments from an expired list was improper. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P10 decision would also cover only those vacancies, which were not in existence as on the date when the appointment orders were issued; I am of the opinion that the very act of the respondents in having issued appointment orders from a ranked list which had already expired by extending the list was improper.

In the above view of the matter, the action taken by the respondents in having cancelled the appointments effected from a rank list, which was no longer in existence cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. In the result, I am of the opinion that the prayers sought for in these writ petitions cannot be granted. These writ petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed.