ANTONY DOMINIC, J. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15625/2006, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, is the appellant herein. She filed the Writ Petition mainly aggrieved by her retrenchment from the Post of H.S.A. (Natural Science) in the school of the 4th respondent. The learned Single Judge having declined her relief and dismissed the writ petition, this writ appeal is filed.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents.
3. The facts pleaded by the appellant show that she was appointed from 6.6.2001 to 18.9.2005 in a leave vacancy. That was approved by the authorities also. It is seen that the 7th respondent teacher had availed leave for the aforesaid period and had joined another management of the 8th respondent as H.S.S.T. with effect from 20.9.2000. This was unknown to the appellant as also the 4th respondent. Finally in 2005, when the appellant came to know of it, she complained to the Deputy Director claiming permanent appointment. Thereupon the 7th respondent teacher immediately submitted resignation requesting to be relieved with retrospective effect from 3.10.2000. However, that request was accepted only with effect from 16.8.2005. In the meantime, one vacancy of H.S.A. (Maths) arose with effect from 1.6.2005 and in order to comply with the requirements of Ext.P4, the same was converted into the vacancy of H.S.A. (English) and the 6th respondent was appointed. In the staff fixation order of 2005-06, one division in Std.X was abolished and one post of H.S.A. (Natural Science) was also abolished. As a result, the sanctioned post of H.S.A. (Natural Science) got reduced to one and the appellant being the one appointed in a leave vacancy, was rendered excess and was retrenched. Challenging this, the appellant pursued departmental remedies and finally her revision was rejected by the Government, as per Ext.P7 order. It is this order which was challenged before this Court leading to the judgment under appeal.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Government Pleader, what we note is that since the resignation of the 7th respondent was accepted only with effect from 16.8.2005, at least until that date, the status of the appellant is that of a teacher appointed against the leave vacancy. In the staff fixation order 2005-06, consequent on the abolition of one division in Std.X, one post of H.S.A. (Natural Science) was also abolished. As a result, on abolition of the vacancy of H.S.A. (Natural Science), retrenchment was necessitated and in such retrenchment, the appellant being the only teacher appointed in leave vacancy was the person to be retrenched. If that be so, the retrenchment of the appointment cannot be held to be illegal. Consequently, the appellant could not have got any relief either in the revision filed by her or in the Writ Petition filed.
so.
Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and we do Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS , JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge