Vaiga K.M vs State Of Kerala And Ors

The petitioner says that she was appointed to the post of Lower Primary School Teacher in the H.M.T Educational Society High School,

Kalamassery, on 2.7.2004 through Ext.P1 order; but that, her appointment was not approved by the Educational Authorities solely on the ground that

the School is to be treated as a newly opened one and that the Manager is, therefore, bound to fill up the vacancies by accommodating protected

teachers.

The petitioner says that the reasons for rejecting her approval are untenable, particularly when the Educational Authorities had approved the

appointment of various other teachers, whose appointments were also made by the fifth respondent - Manager in the same manner. She further

asserts that Ext.P9 judgment, obtained by another teacher who is similarly situated as her, would inure to her benefit also; but that the Government has

issued Ext.P11, rejecting the statutory Revision filed by the Manager, without adverting to any of these aspects. She, therefore, prays that Ext.P11 be

set aside and her appointment be directed to be approved.

The submissions of the petitioner, as made by her learned Counsel â€" Sri.V.Varghese, was opposed by the learned Senior Government Pleader -

Sri.P.M.Manoj, saying that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted approval, because the School is a newly opened one and that none of the

vacancies could have been filled up by the Manager. He, therefore, prayed that Ext.P11 be not interdicted and the writ petition be dismissed.

Even when I hear the learned Senior Government Pleader on the afore lines, the fact remains that similar, if not identical, issues have been

considered by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment, which relates to a teacher who is similarly situated as the petitioner herein. The said judgment had been

delivered following the ratio in Nadeera v. State of Kerala [2011 (3) KLT 790] and hence I am certain that, going by the factual circumstances

presented in this case, the petitioner is also entitled to have her approval re-considered in the light of Nadeera (supra) and adverting to the declarations

in Ext.P9 judgment.

For the reasons afore, I set aside Ext.P11 order and direct the Government to reconsider the revision of the Manager - based on which the said

order had been issued - after affording the petitioner as also the Manager an opportunity of being heard - either physically or through video

conferencing â€" thus culminating in an appropriate decision thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is thus disposed of.