Antony Dominic, J. These appeals are filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos. 22614 and 23689 of 2010 and 33464 of 2009 respectively. The issues raised in these writ petitions are connected and the cases were also disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the facts and documents in W.A. No. 1441 of 2011.
2. These writ petitions are filed by the Manager of an aided School, Smt. P. Jayasree, who was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA) with effect from 15.07.1999 and the 5th respondent Smt. M.V. Latha. who was appointed as UPSA in the school with effect from 04.06.1999. Both the appointments were approved by the departmental authorities.
3. While they were so continuing, there was division fall in the school, and as a result, both were retrenched with effect from 15.07.2001. Subsequently, one vacancy arose with effect from 03.06.2005 and stating that the 5th respondent did not accept the offer for reemployment, the manager appointed the 4th respondent. The appointment of the 4th respondent was approved by the Director of Public Instruction by Ext.P10 order dated 10.03.2008, with effect from 03.06.2005.
4. The appointment of the 4th respondent was challenged by the 5th respondent in Ext.P11 revision filed before the Government. The Government allowed the revision by Ext.P12 order dated 17.09.2009. Challenging Ext.P12 order mentioned above, the Manager and the 4th respondent mentioned above filed W.P.(C) Nos. 22614 and 23689 of 2010 and the 5th respondent filed W.P.(C) No. 33464 of 2011 for its implementation. By the common judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.(C) Nos. 22614 and 23689 of 2010 and allowed W.P.(C) No. 33464 of 2009 filed by the 5th respondent. It is challenging this common judgment, the Manager has filed W.A. Nos. 1441 and 1593 of 2011. Whereas the 4th respondent, Smt.
P. Jayasree filed W.A. No. 1462 of 2011.
5. During the pendency of these appeals, a vacancy was anticipated to arise in the school with effect from 08.06.2012. When that was brought to the notice of this Court, this Court passed a common order dated 31.10.2011, which read as under:
“There is an application for interim relief in W.A. No.
1593 of 2011.
2. Read the interim order minuted on 20th October, 2011 in W.A Nos. 1441/2011 & 1462/2011.
3. Now, the appellant, who is the Manager, in W.A. No. 1593/2011 states that during the current academic year one additional vacancy of UPSA has arisen. We, therefore, clarify that having regard to the fact that these appeals have been admitted against the impugned judgment, the Manager may consider appointing the first respondent in W.A. No. 1593/2011 against that vacancy subject to the Rules and any further rival claims and without prejudice to the claims, if any, of any third party. This may be done notwithstanding anything contained in the impugned judgment and on purely provisional basis and subject to the result of these writ appeals. Any appointment order that may be issued shall specifically make reference to this order so that the appointment would stand modified by this order and these appeals. Following that, the statutory officers under the Kerala Education Act and Kerala Education Rules may grant approval to such appointment on a provisional basis, after ensuring that such appointment is otherwise in accordance with law and subject to the result of these writ appeals.”
6. Accordingly, on the arising of the vacancy, the 4th respondent was appointed and by Annexure A order passed by the Government on 03.06.2014, the Government directed approval of the appointment of respondents 4 and 5 with effect from 08.06.2012 and left open the rival claims in relation to the previous period to be decided in these writ appeals.
7. It is accordingly that these writ appeals are brought up for final hearing. When the matter was taken up, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Manager, the learned Government Pleader and the respective counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5, on an agreed basis submitted that the appeals can be disposed of directing that the approval of the appointment of the 4th respondent with effect from 03.06.2005 shall be notional, and for the limited purpose of enabling her to receive salary for the work she did in the school and that the 5th respondent, the original claimant, may be given notional seniority and increments with effect from 03.06.2005, without any monetary benefits for the said period.
8. Since the parties have thus made the suggestion on an agreed basis, we see no reason why the same shall not be accepted and the appeals are disposed of on that basis.
9. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of on an agreed basis with the following directions:
1. that the approval of the appointment of the 4th respondent with effect from 03.06.2005 shall be only for the purpose of enabling her to receive the salary for the work she has actually done in the school with effect from that date.
2. That the 5th respondent shall be entitled to get notional seniority and increments, without any monetary benefits, with effect from 03.06.2005 and the monetary benefits for the period subsequent to her appointment will be fixed on that basis.
3. That the fourth respondent will be entitled to seniority only from 08.06.2012.
4. that the Manager will make revised proposals to the District Educational Officer within two weeks from today.
Needless to say that on receipt of the proposals from the Manager, the District Educational Officer will accord necessary approvals, at any rate within four weeks thereafter. Once the approval is accorded, the monetary benefits flowing therefrom will also be disbursed to respondents 4 and 5 as expeditiously as possible.
With the above modifications to the judgment under appeal, these appeals are disposed of.
sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
sd/- D. SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge.