IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32809 of 2008(E)
1. BINDU K. UNNITHAN, LOWER GRADE HINDI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. MANAGER, S.R.V. U.P. SCHOOL,
For Petitioner :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :29/06/2009
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.32809/2008-E
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the conversion of the post of
Full Time Hindi Teacher as a Part Time one in the school managed by the
fourth respondent. She is a Post Graduate in Hindi with B.Ed. She was
appointed as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher (Full Time), which arose on
03/01/2002 and that appointment has been duly approved by the second
respondent.
2. In the academic year 2007-08, as per Ext.P1, staff strength was
fixed. One class division was reduced and consequently, one post of
U.P.S.A was reduced. This resulted in reduction of number of periods of
Hindi. Therefore, the post of Full Time Hindi is reduced to Part Time and
the petitioner is reverted as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher (Part Time) from
15/07/2007 in terms of the staff fixation orders.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that she is entitled to be
treated as Full Time Teacher in the light of Ext.P2 Government Order, G.O.
(MS).No.62/73.S.Edn., dated 02/05/1973. It is pointed out that Ext.P2
Government Order permits Part Time Language Teachers having more than
W.P.(C). No.32809/2008
-:2:-
5 years service and having 8 periods of work, to be approved as Full Time
Teachers with all consequential benefits. In the present school there are 14
periods of work for the petitioner and hence, she is entitled to be treated as
Full Time Language Teacher, contends the petitioner. Exts.P3 and P4 are
subsequent Government Orders issued reiterating the above position. The
petitioner challenged Ext.P1 staff fixation order by filing Ext.P5 appeal
which was rejected as per Ext.P7. The revision petition filed against the
same was also rejected. Ext.P9 is the order thus passed. These orders are
under challenge in this writ petition.
4. The petitioner has produced along with I.A.No.14568/2008,
Ext.P10 staff fixation order in respect of another school for the year 2007-
08, wherein, in similar circumstances, based on Ext.P2 Government Order
dated 02/05/1973, Full Time benefit was granted to an existing teacher.
5. In the counter affidavit, it is pointed out that Exts.P2, P3 and P4
Government Orders will not apply to the petitioner, as there was no
provision for retention of Full Time post and that these will apply only to
Part Time posts which satisfy the requirements to be treated as Full Time
posts. It is explained that the number of periods available for Hindi are only
W.P.(C). No.32809/2008
-:3:-
14, which warrants sanction of a Part Time post of Lower Grade Hindi
Teacher and, accordingly, the Full Time post was abolished.
6. The question is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the
benefit of Exts.P2, P3 and P4. Going by the specific terms of Exts.P2 to P4,
what is provided is conversion of Part Time Language Teacher to a Full
Time Teacher when the language teacher has put in more than five years of
service and has more than 8 periods of work and therefore, the benefit is
given to a Part Time Language Teacher. The reverse position is not covered
by Exts.P2 to P4. Going by Rule 6 of Chapter XXIII of K.E.R, for sanction
of a Full Time Post minimum 15 periods of work are required, whereas,
herein only 14 periods are there. Therefore, unless the Rule or any other
Government Order permits retention of a Full Time Teacher in cases where
there are reduction of number of periods, the conversion of the Full Time
post to Part Time post cannot be faulted. In that view of the matter, the
reliance placed by the learned Government Pleader on Exts.P2 to P4 cannot
be sustained.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
since the petitioner is continuing in the school, she is entitled to be paid
salary in the post of Part Time Teacher and so far nothing has been paid.
W.P.(C). No.32809/2008
-:4:-
Since the staff fixation permits one post of Part Time Teacher, the learned
counsel submits that there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner’s right to
receive salary cannot be denied.
8. The learned Government Pleader, relying upon the averments
in the counter affidavit submits that the Manager should have produced an
appointment order afresh appointing the petitioner as Part Time Teacher.
9. The circumstances under which the post became Part Time
cannot obviously go against the petitioner as she is continuing in the school.
The requirement of a separate appointment order, is not covered by any
other statutory provision. But still it is submitted by the learned
Government Pleader that since there is a termination of the Full Time post
and the sanction of a Part Time post, it requires a separate appointment
order. As far as the tenure of the petitioner is concerned, there is
continuance in service.
10. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of in the
following manner:- The challenge against Exts.P1, P7 and P9 fails. There
will be a direction to the fourth respondent Manager to forward necessary
proposal in the case of the petitioner for continuance of the petitioner as a
Part Time Teacher within a period of one month from the date of receipt of
W.P.(C). No.32809/2008
-:5:-
a copy of this judgment and on receipt of the same, the second and third
respondents will pass appropriate orders granting approval, and the salary
including arrears from 15/07/2007 will be disbursed, within a further period
of two months thereafter. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms