IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28978 of 2008(Y)
1. M.R. RAJU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :10/07/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.28978 of 2008-Y
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is working as an LPSA in KMM L.P. School, Athipotta
in Palakkad District. He was appointed from 13.9.1990 and the
appointment has been duly approved.
2. Presently, pursuant to the staff fixation order dated 29.7.2008 for
the year 2007-2008 due to fall in strength of the students, he became
surplus and was found eligible for protection also. But at the same time, it
is recorded in Ext.P1 that he is to be deployed as and when order of
deployment from Deputy Director of Education is obtained. The petitioner
is relying upon para 2 of Ext.P2, i.e. GO.(P) No.175/99/G.Edn. dated
26.7.1999 wherein it is ordered that all aided school teachers who were in
service as on 14.7.1996 will be given protection by retaining them in the
respective schools subject to certain conditions. Therefore, according to the
petitioner, he being in service on 14.7.1996, will be entitled for retention in
the parent school itself. It is therefore contended that no redeployment is
required as far as the petitioner is concerned.
2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is
wpc 28978/08 2
averred in para 3 that Ext.P2 is only one among the orders passed by the
Government allowing protection to aided school teachers who were
appointed in regular service up to 1996-97, upto 14.7.1997. There are later
orders issued by the Government, viz. G.O.(P) No.178/02/GE dated
28.6.2002, G.O.(P) No.403/02/GE dated 4.12.2002 and G.O.(P)
No.167/08/GE dated 20.9.2008. It is averred that the petitioner is not
eligible to be retained in the same school by applying any of the modified
guidelines as prescribed in the Govt. Orders.
3. There is nothing to show that Ext.P2 Govt. Order has been
superseded by the Govt. Orders dated 28.6.2002, 4.12.2002 or 20.9.2008
mentioned in the counter affidavit. Unless para 2 of Ext.P2 Govt. Order has
been modified and the benefit allowable to the teachers coming within the
said category is withdrawn, the petitioner is entitled for retention in the
parent school itself. Merely because subsequent Govt. Orders are issued in
relation to the matters which are not covered by Ext.P2 Govt. Order, the
benefit cannot be denied to the petitioner. The counter affidavit does not
reveal that Ext.P2 is no longer in force. There is no averment to the effect
that para 2 of Ext.P2 has been varied by later Govt. Orders also.
4. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this court, the petitioner
was retained in the same school for the year 2008-09. In that view of the
wpc 28978/08 3
matter, the issue will be examined in the light of the strength of the students
for the current year, i.e. 2009-2010.
5. The third respondent will therefore examine the matter in the light
of the above observations and appropriate actions will be taken. It will be
deemed that the petitioner has validly continued in the school in the light of
the interim order, for the year 2008-09. His claim will be duly considered
while finalising the staff fixation for the year 2009-2010.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/