Judgment:
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.
1. Writ petitioner is the appellant. She was appointed as Sewing Teacher in the fourth respondent's School in a retirement vacancy on 1.6.1989. Since her appointment was not approved, she was not paid salary. Petitioner submits, the Assistant Educational Officer has filed Ext.P1 report before the Director of Public Instruction stating that there was sufficient student strength from 1989-90 to 1999-2000 justifying the sanction of a Sewing Teacher. The said officer has also reported that no other specialist teacher is working there. Based on Ext.P1, the petitioner sought the following reliefs:
i. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P1 report by which it can be seen that out of the total roll strength more than 90% students are attending sewing classes.
2. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, it was stated as follows:
The Manager, K.U.L.P.S, Vengoor has appointed Smt. P.Sarada, the petitioner as Part Time Sewing Teacher in the School from 01.06.1989 in the retirement vacancy of Smt. G.Indiramma, Sewing Mistress who retired from service on 31.03.1989. Smt. Indiramma was working in the School as Part Time Sewing Mistress from 03.07.1962 and was granted protection as per G.O. (Ms)56/71/G.Edn. Dated 19.05.1971 with effect from 08.06.1971. The post existed was a protected one. As the post was protected there was no scope for the continuance of the post. The protected post was abolished from 1989-90 onwards due to the retirement of the teacher as per Rule (3) of Rule 2 Chapter XXIII KER, when it became vacant on retirement.
Accordingly the appointment of the petitioner was rejected from this office and the Teacher was not continuing in the school. The appeal preferred by the Manager before the District Educational Officer, Kottarakkara, the Deputy Director (Edn.), Kollam and Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram were also rejected stating that there is no sanctioned post.
The said respondent has further stated that the details given in Ext.P1 are those reported by the Headmistress of the School. In fact there was not sufficient students for the sewing classes. In the said counter affidavit it was further asserted that the petitioner was not working in the school. Relying on the above submissions, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.
3. In this appeal, certain documents have been produced as Annexures 1 to 16 to show that the petitioner was working in the school all along, and the finding of the learned Single Judge relying on the submission of the third respondent was not correct. Further, the appellant claimed payment of salary relying on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in Jolly v. State of Kerala : 2003(2) KLT 192.
4. Heard.
5. We notice that in this case the claim of the petitioner for approval of her appointment was rejected as early as in 1990. She has chosen not to challenge those orders passed by the statutory authorities. Therefore, those orders have become final. Therefore, the continuance of the petitioner after 1990 is unauthorised and cannot be treated as legal relying on the initial order of the Manager appointing her. In the Full Bench decision, we find that the orders refusing to approve the appointment of the incumbent therein were promptly challenged before this Court. It means that the person concerned was vigilantly pursuing her claim. In this case, after 17 years of rejection of approval, the writ petition was filed in 2007. Her claim is highly stale and cannot be accepted. The petitioner does not have any case on merits. The order passed in favour of the incumbent, who was vigilantly pursuing her claim, by the Full Bench cannot be made applicable to the appellant.
In the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed.