Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1170 (KER)

Prajna R W/o Santhoshan P UPST v. State of Kerala

2025-05-13

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. The petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P4 Staff Fixation Order to the extent it retrenches the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks to direct respondents 2 and 3 to accommodate the petitioner in the HTV Vacancy from 15.07.2024 onwards after recalling the 5 th respondent. 2. The petitioner was appointed as UPST in the 4 th respondent's School with effect from 15.07.2021, against a retirement vacancy. Her appointment was provisionally approved as per Ext.P2 order, subject to the claims of PwD candidates. In the year 2023-2024, due to want of building accommodation, one post of UPST was reduced. However, the petitioner continued in the School, drawing salary. 3. In the year 2024-2025, the petitioner was ordered to be retrenched. The 4 th respondent-Manager was required to appoint a protected Teacher in the HTV vacancy. The Manager informed the 3 rd respondent-AEO that the petitioner is a Rule 51A claimant and therefore entitled to protection in the HTV vacancy. The Manager requested the 2 nd respondent-DDE to set right the illegality in retrenching the petitioner. The 2 nd respondent, however, issued order deploying the 5 th respondent to the HTV vacancy. 4. The petitioner states that she is a protected Teacher under the same educational agency, whereas the 5 th respondent is an approved HST from another educational agency. The 5 th respondent could not have been deployed in preference to the superior claim of the petitioner. Rule 7 Chapter XXI KER also protects the right of a Rule 51A claimant. Therefore, Ext.P4 is liable to be set aside to the extent of retrenching the petitioner. 5. The 3 rd respondent opposed the writ petition. The 3 rd respondent stated that Ext.P2 approval given to the initial appointment of the petitioner was provisional and conditional. Therefore, when there occurred a reduction of post of UPST in the year 2024-2025, the petitioner could not have been taken as a Rule 51A claimant. HTV vacancy can be filled up only in accordance with Rule 7 Chapter XXI KER from among the list of protected Teachers maintained by the Department. 6. The Manager has not provided reservation to the Physically disabled Persons as required under Government Orders. The Manager has not submitted the roster nor the requisitions seeking the list of persons with disabilities from the Special Employment Exchange. 6. The Manager has not provided reservation to the Physically disabled Persons as required under Government Orders. The Manager has not submitted the roster nor the requisitions seeking the list of persons with disabilities from the Special Employment Exchange. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be deployed to the HTV vacancy which should be filled up by a protected hand. The deployment of the 5 th respondent is therefore justified. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents. 8. The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 Staff Fixation Order to the extent of retrenching the petitioner. The petitioner states that she is a Rule 51A claimant and has a superior right over protected Teachers. The petitioner was, in fact, appointed as UPST with effect from 15.07.2021 and continued till 15.07.2024. The appointment of the petitioner was approved as per Ext.P2 order dated 27.11.2023. Ext.P2 approval order provided that the approval is provisional and the probation of the petitioner shall not be declared nor the annual increments granted. The approval is limited to the date on which PwD candidates join service. 9. As the approval of the petitioner's appointment is stated to be temporary in Ext.P2 and as it is with a specific direction not to declare probation and not to grant increments, the approval cannot be treated as one subsequently giving rise to a Rule 51A claim. The Manager has not provided roster for appointment of PwD candidates. The Manager has not produced requisition seeking nomination of PwD candidates from the Special Employment Exchange. 10. In the afore facts of the case, I am not inclined to hold that the approval granted to the initial appointment given to the petitioner is absolute. Such a provisional appointment cannot give rise to a Rule 51A claim subsequently, unless the appointment is regularised. There is no illegality in deploying a protected Teacher to the School. The writ petition is therefore without any merit and it is dismissed.