The petitioner, an LPSA, who was initially appointed in the AMLP School, Puthumanassery, had approved service from 8.2.1998. On assessment of vacancy due to fall of students strength, she was relieved from service with effect from 14.7.2002. Though a retirement vacancy arose in the school on 30.4.2011, the Manager appointed the petitioner in that vacancy with effect from 1.3.2012 as LPSA. The said appointment was not approved on the ground that the minimum required period was not available in the academic year. Thereafter, her appointment as LPSA was approved with effect from 1.6.2012 only on daily wages basis. The petitioner challenges Exhibit P10 order issued by the Government on revision preferred by her stating that the approval of the petitioner in the scale of LPSA could be considered only in case the minimum strength as provided in Circular No.58604/J2/12/G.Edn. is fulfilled.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. The petitioner contends that she is a Rule 51A claimant. Her appointment on 1.6.2012 was to a regular vacancy. Going by the provisions in Chapter XXIII KER, the appointment of the petitioner was WP(C).19390/14 2 liable to be approved in the scale of pay of LPSA. However, relying on a Government circular, which provides that even in case of regular vacancies, appointments in uneconomic schools which do not have the minimum required students strength will be approved only on a daily wage basis, the educational authorities as well as the Government had rejected her claim for appointment in the scale of pay. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the statutory rules clearly prescribe a staff strength which would justify the approval of the petitioner's appointment in a scale of pay, the action of the educational authorities and the Government in relying on a circular to deny the benefits is illegal and cannot be sustained. The petitioner has a further case that she was deputed for training course conducted by the DIET during the period from 26.5.2012 to 4.6.2012 and had completed the course and reported before the 2nd respondent on 14.6.2012 to receive posting orders as cluster co-ordinator under BRC. However, the 2nd respondent did not issue posting order to the petitioner for the reason that she had been posted in her parent school by the Manager. It is contended that due to the action of the respondents in refusing to approve the appointment of the petitioner on a scale of pay, she has also lost her chance for appointment as cluster co-ordinator, which would be preferable to the daily wages appointment now granted. The petitioner contends that in case approval could not be granted on a WP(C).19390/14 3 regular basis for her appointment with effect from 1.6.2012, she should have been appointed as cluster co-ordinator, since she was fully eligible for the same.
4. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side at considerable strength, I am not persuaded to hold that the insistence of the Government that a minimum strength of students is required in the school for approving the appointment of the petitioner in a scale of pay is completely without justification. However, the claim of the petitioner for appointment as cluster co-ordinator was denied only on the ground that she had been appointed as LPSA in the parent school. Going by the provisions of Chapter XXIII, the petitioner had a reasonable expectation of getting her appointment approved as LPSA in a scale of pay. It was only because of the fact that the school in which she was appointed did not have the minimum student strength for such approval as prescribed in the circulars of the Government that she was denied approval of appointment. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner for appointment as cluster co-ordinator should have been considered by the 2nd respondent DPI.
In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for posting as cluster co-ordinator taking into account Exhibits P8 and P10 as well. If the WP(C).19390/14 4 petitioner is found to be otherwise eligible for posting the 2nd respondent shall grant her posting orders as cluster co-ordinator within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This will be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to continue in her parent school on daily wages and any other rights in terms of Exhibits P8 and P10.
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE vgs7/10