High Court Kerala High Court

Dipinkrishna vs State Of Kerala on 9 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
Dipinkrishna vs State Of Kerala on 9 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16515 of 2010(L)


1. DIPINKRISHNA, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

5. THE MANAGER, P.V.S.HIGH SCHOOL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :09/11/2010

 O R D E R
                          K.T.SANKARAN, J.
             ------------------------------------------------------
                 W.P.(C). NO. 16515 OF 2010 L
             ------------------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010


                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher

in P.V.S.High School, Eranhikkal under the management of the fifth

respondent, in a leave vacancy of one Ashokan.C.K., for the period

from 5.6.2006 to 31.3.2007. It is stated that the educational officer

rejected the proposal for approval of the appointment. The appeal

filed by the Manager was dismissed as per Ext.P3 order dated

20.6.2008, passed by the Director of Public Instruction. Against

Ext.P3 order, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 Revision before the

Government. It is stated that Ext.P4 Revision is pending disposal.

2. Thereafter, Ashokan.C.K., Physical Education Teacher,

retired from service on 31.3.2007. The petitioner was appointed as

Physical Education Teacher on 2.6.2008. The proposal for approval

of this appointment was also rejected by the Educational Officer, as

per Ext.P7 order dated 15.10.2008, on several grounds including the

ground that a protected teacher was not appointed, the school of the

W.P.(C) NO.16515 OF 2010 L

:: 2 ::

fifth respondent being a newly opened school. Ext.P7 order was

challenged in Ext.P8 appeal before the Deputy Director of Education,

who passed Ext.P9 order dated 19.2.2009, confirming the order

passed by the Educational Officer. The petitioner filed Ext.P10

Revision before the Government, which was rejected as per Ext.P11

order dated 7.11.2009. In Ext.P11 order, the Government took the

view that the Manager should have appointed a protected teacher

when a vacancy arose. It is also stated that at that time several

protected teachers were available in the District. The further

statement in Ext.P11 is that the petitioner was not a Rule 51A

claimant and, therefore, he could not claim appointment in

preference to a protected teacher.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P4

Revision is pending. If it is found that no protected teacher was

available during that period, the appointment of the petitioner for the

period from 5.6.2006 to 31.3.2007 could be approved. If that

appointment is approved, the petitioner becomes a claimant under

Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules and,

therefore, notwithstanding the availability of protected teachers, his

W.P.(C) NO.16515 OF 2010 L

:: 3 ::

appointment on 2.6.2008 could be approved. The petitioner has also

pointed out that the Manager expressed his willingness, as per

Ext.P13 letter dated 25.5.2010, to appoint a protected teacher and

as per Ext.P14 order dated 17.7.2010 passed by the Deputy Director

of Education, Kozhikode, a protected teacher was deployed in the

school managed by the fifth respondent. The counsel for the

petitioner pointed out that subsequent events also can be taken note

of and the appointment of the petitioner can be approved either from

the date of appointment or from the date of deployment of a

protected teacher, depending upon the facts and circumstances of

the case. According to the petitioner, his appointment for the period

from 5.6.2006 to 31.3.2007 is liable to be approved and if so, there

was no impediment in approving his appointment on 2.6.2008 as

well. These are all matters for consideration by the Government. If

Ext.P4 is pending, all these questions can be considered while

disposing of Ext.P4 Revision. If it is found that Ext.P4 Revision is not

pending, the petitioner can be permitted to make a detailed

representation to the Government pointing out all the above facts

and making necessary prayers. If such a request is filed or if Ext.P4

Revision is pending, then the Government will consider all the

W.P.(C) NO.16515 OF 2010 L

:: 4 ::

relevant aspects notwithstanding Ext.P11 order dated 7.11.2009.

After considering the matters, a final decision shall be taken by the

Government within a period of six months. The petitioner shall

produce a copy of the Writ Petition, copy of I.A.No.13951 of 2010

and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge

ahz/