IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2374 of 2008()
1. DR.P.V.JOSEPH, XIX/256, PUKKUNEL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. MANAGER, FR.JOSEPH M.H.S.SCHOOL,
Vs
1. BINCY VARGHEESE, H.S.A (MATHS)
... Respondent
2. JEENA T.S., H.S.A(MALAYALAM), -DO-.
3. USHA.M.S., H.S.A (HINDI), -D0-.
4. SMITHA.T, U.P.S.A, -DO-.
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.ELDHOSE ELIAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :12/12/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.
--------------------------------------
W.A.No.2374 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated 12th December, 2008
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
Four teachers appointed on 5.6.2006 in the Fr.Joseph
Memorial Higher Secondary School, Puthupady, Muvattupuzha
approached this court stating that even though they are working for
about two years, their appointments are not approved and, therefore,
they are entitled for approval of their service. Learned Judge directed to
grant approval as they were appointed by the defacto Manager. It is not
disputed that one Prasad P Varghese (brother of the appellant who is the
fourth respondent in the writ petition) was the Manager of the School
and his appointment was approved by Ext.P14 order dated 6.5.1978.
Later, appellant was elected as the Manager by the Corporate
management on 2.2.2001. His appointment was approved by Ext.P19
order dated 3.7.2001. But, that order was set aside by the Director of
Public Instruction by Ext.P20 order. District Educational Officer
appointed Sri.Prasad P.Varghese as the Manager by Ext.P21. A revision
petition filed by the appellant against Ext.P20 order was also rejected by
Ext.P22. Even though Exts.P20 and P22 orders were set aside by this
court in O.P.No.20324 of 2002, that judgment was reversed by Ext.P24
W.A.No.2374/2008 2
judgment of a Division Bench of this court and it was directed that
Ext.P22 shall be considered by the Director of Public Instruction.
That management dispute between these two brothers, Sri.Prasad P.
Varghese and appellant herein is still pending at various stages. We
are not expressing any opinion regarding the management dispute in
this proceedings. It is not disputed that there were four vacancies of
substantial teachers in 2006. Students cannot study without teachers.
One important factor is that students should not suffer for lack of
teachers. The above four teachers are fully qualified and they were
doing the work. There was no other rival teachers and all the time
during the relevant period Sri.Prasad P Varghese was acting as the
Manager. He was a defacto Manager. It is true that at the time when
appointments were made Exts.P20 and P22 orders were set aside by
Ext.P23 and Ext.P23 was set aside by Ext.P24 judgment of the
Division Bench. The learned single Judge in the impugned judgment
found that appointments made by the defacto Manager for
substantial vacancies by qualified teachers need not be changed even
if it is found that Manager’s appointment was illegal and relied on a
Division Bench decision of this court in Manager, St.Mary’s H.S. v.
Beji Abraham (2002(1) KLT 406) and Padmanabhan Nambiar v.
Government of Kerala (1997 (2) KLT 725). On the facts of this case,
we are not inclined to admit the writ appeal, but, at the same time, we
W.A.No.2374/2008 3
make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion regarding the
Management dispute between the parties.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
THOMAS P. JOSEPH
JUDGE
tks