IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23298 of 2008(W)
1. GEP THOMAS.K, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. THE MANAGER, C.S. SUBRAHMANIANPOTTI,
6. GEETHA.S, U.P. SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :04/06/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.23298 of 2008-W
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed by the petitioner who is presently working as
High School Assistant having promoted to that post on 9.6.2003. The
challenge is against the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Education
and confirmed in revision by the Director of Public Instruction which are
produced as Exts.P6 and P7. The circumstances leading to the dispute
which is the subject matter of the writ petition, are the following:
2. The petitioner and the 6th respondent are the rival claimants. the
petitioner was originally appointed in the school as U.P.S.A. on 2.9.2002.
That was approved from 2.9.2002 to 31.3.2003 and from 2.6.2003 onwards.
A vacancy arose due to the promotion of one H.S.A. as H.S.S.T. and the
petitioner was promoted to the post of H.S.A. (Maths) by order dated
9.6.2003. The 6th respondent was appointed on 9.6.2003 as U.P.S.A. in the
vacancy which arose due to the promotion of the petitioner. The 6th
respondent was originally appointed as U.P.S.A. in a maternity leave
vacancy from 6.6.2002 to 17.10.2002. That was approved on 12.6.2003 by
the District Educational Officer.
wpc 23298/2008 2
3. It appears that the 6th respondent filed a petition before the District
Educational Officer staking a claim for appointment against the vacancy
which arose on 2.9.2002 to which the petitioner was appointed. The matter
was taken up before this court by the 6th respondent in Writ Petition
No.17296/2004 and this court directed the District Educational Officer to
pass orders on her representation after hearing the petitioner and the
respondents therein. Accordingly, the parties were heard. As per Ext.P4
order, the claim raised by the 6th respondent was rejected. It was found that
the 6th respondent has no claim under Rule 51-A of Chapter XIV-A of
K.E.R. in the vacancy which arose on 2.9.2002, to which the petitioner was
appointed.
4. The 6th respondent filed an appeal as Ext.P5 on 27.9.2005 against
Ext.P4 order dated 5.10.2004. That was disposed of by Ext.P5. The Deputy
Director, after hearing the respective parties, directed the District
Educational Officer to regularise the appointments of U.P.S.As. made by
the Manager from 18.10.2002 and it was held that the 6th respondent has a
claim to the post of U.P.S.A. from 18.10.2002. There was a direction to
realise excess salary, if any, paid to the incumbents by way of irregular
appointments after regularising their appointments within three months
without fail. That was challenged by the petitioner and by the Manager
wpc 23298/2008 3
before the Director of Public Instruction. Ext.P7 is the order passed by the
Director of Public Instruction. The Manager filed a revision before the
Government, wherein Ext.P8 order of stay was granted. It appears that the
Director of Public Instruction again passed a fresh order as per Ext.P9
confirming the order Ext.P7.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the
petitioner was appointed on 2.9.2002 and as on that date the 6th respondent
was already appointed in the school in a maternity leave vacancy which
arose on 6.6.2002 and that vacancy terminated only on 17.10.2002.
Therefore, it is submitted that the 6th respondent has no claim under Rule
51-A of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. It is further pointed out that the
appointment of the petitioner was approved as per Ext.P2 order dated
20.5.2003. Prior to that, no claim was raised by the 6th respondent before
the District Educational Officer. It is long after the approval that the 6th
respondent raised a claim before the District Educational Officer. It is
submitted that since the claim under Rule 51-A of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. is
not allowable to the 6th respondent, the order Ext.P6 passed by the Deputy
Director of Education without considering any of the legal issues, is
perfectly illegal. It is pointed out that the Director of Public Instruction in
Ext.P7, has not considered anything on the merits and in the subsequent
wpc 23298/2008 4
order passed by the Director of Public Instruction, on Ext.P9 also, no
detailed reasons have been pointed out.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Manager submitted that
subsequent to the appointment of the 6th respondent on 9.6.2003, two other
vacancies have arisen and the said vacancies have also been filled up. In
fact, the Manager had agreed before the Deputy Director of Education to re-
arrange the appointments made by him in the vacancies which arose after
9.6.2003 and the recognition of the claim of the 6th respondent by the
Deputy Director of Education is without reference to the provisions of Rule
51-A of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. It is pointed out that the Manager had filed
a revision challenging Ext.P7 order which was disposed of by the
Government going by the reference in Ext.P9, by directing the Director of
Public Instruction to consider the matter. But no hearing was conducted by
the Government also before issuing such a direction. It is pointed out that if
at all the 6th respondent has got a claim, that can only be in respect of
vacancies which arose subsequently and not in respect of vacancy against
which the petitioner was appointed and approval of which was granted by
the District Educational Officer.
7. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that the Manager
was bound to accommodate the 6th respondent in the vacancy which arose
wpc 23298/2008 5
on 2.9.2002, as she was already working as a leave substitute and reliance is
placed on a Government Order dated 9.11.1999. It is pointed out that
overlooking the claims of the 6th respondent, the petitioner was appointed on
2.9.2002.
8. Before going into the further details, one aspect also has to be
considered. Learned Govt. Pleader has made available the files leading to
the impugned orders. It is seen that the Government as per letter dated
27.2.2008 directed the Director of Public Instruction to reconsider the issue
after hearing all concerned including a revision petition. A copy of the
revision petition filed before the Government was forwarded to the Director
of Public Instruction. It is clear that the argument raised by the learned
counsel for the Manager that the Government has not disposed of the
revision in accordance with law, is correct. It is not necessary, at this
distance of time, to direct the Government to hear the revision petition,
especially since the said action is not under challenge in this writ petition..
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
Manager submitted that the 6th respondent cannot have a claim under Rule
51-A of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R., as she cannot be treated as a teacher who
has been “relieved” as on 2.9.2002, which alone will satisfy the requirement
of Rule 51-A. Reliance is placed on Ext.R5(a) judgment of this court in
wpc 23298/2008 6
O.P.No.17698/1995. Going by Rule 51-A, qualified teachers who are
relieved as per Rule 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall
have preference for appointment to future vacancies in the school. This
aspect was considered in Ext.R5(a) judgment. It was held as follows:
“In view of the fact that the vacancy arose in 1993 and at that time
the petitioner did not have any approved service, the petitioner
cannot claim the benefit of Rule 51-A of Chapter XIV-A of the
K.E.R. The subsequent approval of appointment of the petitioner in
1996 cannot clothe the petitioner with any right to be considered for
appointment in 1993.”
Obviously, going by the plain terms of Rule 51-A, the 6th respondent was
not relieved from service as on 2.9.2002 as stipulated under any of the
contingencies provided therein. The vacancy was terminated only on
18.10.2002. The approval was granted later. If that be so, the claim raised
under Rule 51-A cannot be sustained and the Manager cannot be faulted for
not recognising a claim to him under Rule 51-A. In fact, the Deputy
Director of Education has also not found in favour of the 6th respondent
based on such a claim. He has only recognised the right of the 6th
respondent for the post of U.P.S.A. from 18.10.2002 only. In that view of
the matter, the Deputy Director was not right in interfering with the order of
approval granted in favour of the petitioner.
wpc 23298/2008 7
10. Presently, the following position emerges from the entire
scenario. The petitioner was promoted as H.S.A. on 9.6.2003 and in the
consequent vacancy of U.P.S.A. the 6th respondent was appointed. Both
these appointments have not been approved because of the pendency of the
disputes between them. It is also seen that subsequently two more
appointments have been made by the Manager in the category of U.P.S.A.
11. Therefore, P6, P7 and P9 are hereby quashed. The Deputy
Director of Education will reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the
findings rendered above, after hearing the petitioner, the Manager and the
6th respondent or any other claimants who have been subsequently
appointed. The respective parties will be allowed to raise all contentions by
the Deputy Director of Education. Appropriate orders shall be passed
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/