District Educational Officer vs Sayyid Muhammed Rafeek. K on 21 July, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 265 of 2010()


1. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE

                        Vs



1. SAYYID MUHAMMED RAFEEK. K.
                       ...       Respondent

2. VIDHU.P.,

3. NIMA.A.M.

4. SHAHIDA.A.T.,

5. ANEESH BABU.O.,

6. SAKKEER HUSSAIN.T.P.

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :21/07/2010

 O R D E R
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                             P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
               ....................................................................
           Writ Appeal Nos.265,183,1199 & 1217 of 2010
               ....................................................................
                  Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010.

                                      JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

The connected appeals are filed by the State challenging the

judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that under Rule 6(VIII)

of Chapter-V K.E.R. the school managements which have executed

agreements with Government in terms of the Rule, have no

responsibility to appoint protected teachers from outside the

educational district. Even though Government Pleader referred to

Section 13 of the Education Act, we do not find any specific provision

therein requiring the management to appoint protected teachers from

outside the educational district in which the educational institution of

the management is located. In these cases specific agreements are

executed in terms of the above Rule under which managements were

bound to appoint teachers protected in the educational districts wherein

their schools are located. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the

respondents are not bound to appoint protected teachers from outside

W.A. 265/2010& conn. 2

the educational district. When the Government through the Rule itself

restricted the scope of responsibility of the management to appoint

protected teachers by limiting their liability to such of the teachers

protected within the educational district, obviously without

Government amending the Rule applicable to protected teachers

available within a Revenue District or all over the State, they cannot

contend otherwise. The learned Single Judge rightly upheld the claim

of the managements to appoint teachers of their choice in terms of the

provisions of the Rule, if no protected teacher is available in their

educational district. Since the appellants have no case that respondents

have violated the terms of the agreement or the Rule, there is no scope

for interference with the judgment. Writ Appeals are consequently

dismissed. However, taking into account the increased number of

teachers going to the protected class in certain areas, it is for the

Government to consider amendment to the Rule so that protected

teachers are accommodated in schools anywhere in the State.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

P.S.GOPINATHAN
Judge
pms