C.C. Aboobacker vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 953 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

    MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.29096 OF 2020(J)


PETITIONER:

               C.C. ABOOBACKER
               AGED 50 YEARS
               PARAMBIL HOUSE,NEDIYIRUPP P.O,
               MUSLIYARANGADI,CHOAMUKK,MALAPPURAM-673638,(FORMER
               LPSA,AMLP SCHOOL,
               KLARIPUTHUR).

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
               SRI.MANU GOVIND

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE STATE OF KERALA,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL
               EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM-695001.

      2        DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
               JAGATHY,TRIVANDRUM-14.

      3        ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
               TANUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676302.

      4        MANAGER,AMLP SCHOOL,
               KLARIPUTHUR,P.O.KURUGA,
               MALAPPURAM-676551.

    GP SMT.NISHA BOSE

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-
01-2021, THE COURT ON 11-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.29096/2020
                                        2



                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11th day of January 2021

1. The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"i a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside Exhibit P8 in so far as it deny the petitioner the benefit of Rule 51A of Kerala Education Rules.

ii.declare that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment in the next arising vacancy in the 4 th respondent school."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

petitioner was a Rule 51A claimant and that the rejection of

that claim by the Government is untenable. The petitioner

submits that he had been appointed as LPSA for the period

from 1.1.2003 to 30.4.2003, the said appointment was not

approved. Thereafter, Ext.P8 the Government directed the

approval of the said appointment. However, since the

petitioner did not seek appointment when vacancies arose on

18.8.2005, 5.6.2006 and 10.12.2007 and since the initial W.P.(C).No.29096/2020

appointment was only for two months, the contention that he

was entitled for preferential claim for reappointment was

rejected.

4. I have considered the contentions advanced. By virtue of the

amendment carried out to the provisions contained in

Rule 7A (3) as well as under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A KER

and has held in the judgment of the Apex Court in Manager,

VKNM Vocational Higher Secondary School v. State of

Kerala and others (2016 (1) KHC 430), the petitioner ceased

to have any statutory right under Rule 51A. Subsequent to the

amendment in 2005, a teacher with approved service for a

period less than one year will not have any right for re-

appointment under Rule 51A. This position is laid down by the

Apex Court reversing the decision of the Full Bench

judgment of this Court in Jayasree K. v. State of Kerala and

Other [2014 (4) KHC 280).

5. Having considered the contentions, I find that in view of the

judgment of the Apex Court in which it is categorically held W.P.(C).No.29096/2020

that in order to have a claim under Rule 51A, the teacher

should have approved service for not less than one academic

year, in tune with the amended provisions contained in Rule

7A(3) and Rule 51A. The petitioner, who was appointed for a

period of two months, would have no preferential claim after

the amendment, even if the appointment is approved.

6.In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the

finding in Ext.P8 to the effect that the petitioner cannot raise a

claim under Rule 51A even if his appointment is approved

cannot be found fault with. The question with regard to

relinquishment of appointment by the petitioner is therefore

irrelevant. I am of the opinion that there is no patent illegality

vitiating Ext.P8 order.

The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

Anu Sivaraman, Judge

sj/5/1/2021 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 15.07.2005

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELINQUISHMENT LETTER (UNDATED)

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF RELINQUISHMENT DATED 09.08.2003.

EXHIBIT P5           TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY RECEIPT ALLEGEDLY
                     ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P6           TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

NO.GO(RT)NO.1140/2011/G.EDN DATED 22.03.2011

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.01.2019 IN WP(C)NO. 13018 OF 2012 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

True Copy

PS to Judge