Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 6, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, initially appointed as UPSA and later as HSA, has been subjected to repeated appointments by transfer and repeated rejections of approval by the authorities.
3. Initially, the petitioner was appointed through Ext.P4 as UPSA in a regular vacancy in a school under the management of the 7th respondent Corporate Educational Agency. When the management sought approval of the said appointment, the 4th respondent rejected it through Ext.P5.
Subsequently, both the appeal and the revision submitted by the 7th respondent stood rejected through Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the 2nd and 1st respondents respectively. The ground assigned was that the school was uneconomic and that only a protected teacher ought to have been appointed.
4. Later, the petitioner was appointed in a promotional vacancy as UPSA through Ext.P13 in another school under the management of the 7th respondent. When approval was sought, it was rejected by the District Educational Officer on the ground that the promotee did not have his promotion approved. Then, through Ext.P17, the petitioner was appointed yet again as UPSA in yet another school by the 7th respondent. Through Ext.P18, the approval was rejected by the 6th respondent and the said rejection was upheld by the 3rd respondent through Ext.P19, assigning the same reasons as was done in the earlier instance that the promottee did not have his promotion approved. When eventually the petitioner was appointed as UPSA in another school under the same management, the said appointment, however, was approved by the authorities through Ext.P20.
5. Later, through Ext.P21, the petitioner came to be appointed in the 5th school as UPSA. It too was approved through Ext.P21(a). While she was working in the said school, the petitioner was promoted as HSA and later shifted to a regular vacancy. Under these circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P25 revision before the 1st respondent seeking approval of her appointment on all occasions beginning from the first school to the last school where presently the petitioner is working in the promotional post of HSA. Complaining of non disposal of Ext.P25, the petitioner approached this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that Ext.P7 order in revision cannot be sustained, inasmuch as even in an uneconomic school, Rule 51(a) claimant can be appointed. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Exts. P8 to P21 judgments to buttress his claim that Rule 51(a) claimant could be appointed in an uneconomic school. At this juncture, the learned counsel has submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the status of the petitioner as Rule 51(a) claimant. Insofar as the second rejection is concerned, it was on the ground that the promottee did not have her promotion approved. As could be seen from the record, subsequently, the said promottee filed a writ petition before this Court and obtained Ext.P16 judgment, through which this Court directed the authorities to regularise her promotion. According to the learned counsel, there is no impediment for approving the second appointment of the petitioner, which was made through Ext.P13.
7. The learned counsel has also contended that even with regard to the third appointment through Ext.P17, that being a promotional vacancy, the promottee therein too approached this Court and obtained a judgment for the approval of her promotion. As such, there ought not to have been any further impediment in approving the appointment of the petitioner. Eventually, the learned counsel has contended that though the petitioner's appointments through Exts.P22 and P23 are against clear vacancies, they could not be approved by the authorities only on the premise that the earlier appointments were rejected. Under those circumstances, the petitioner, contends the learned counsel, invoked Rule 92 of KER and filed Ext.P25 revision.
8. The learned Government Pleader, on his part, has initially contended that since all the earlier appointments were rejected and the rejections were also through separate orders, the petitioner ought to have filed individual revision petitions assailing each order. He has further submitted that since the petitioner has filed, subject to maintainability, a comprehensive revision under Rule 92 of KER, it may not be appropriate at this juncture for this Court to adjudicate the issue on merits.
Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P25 revision petition in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If desired, the first respondent may provide an opportunity of being heard in person to the petitioner. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv