IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34962 of 2007(K)
1. N.K.RENUKA,
... Petitioner
2. G.PRASANNAKUMARI,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :27/11/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.34962/2007
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
The prayer in this writ petition is with reference to the
claim of the petitioners for appointment to the two
vacancies of Peon, which are presently available in the
School of which the 3rd respondent is the Manager.
2. First petitioner was appointed as Full Time Menial
in the aforesaid school, on being sponsored by the
Employment Exchange, during the period from 11.6.1999 to
6.12.1999. Ext.P2 is the order of appointment. In so far as
the second petitioner is concerned, he too was sponsored by
the Employment Exchange and was appointed as Full Time
Menial as per Ext.P3 order for the period from 17.7.2000 to
11.11.2001. Both these appointments were approved.
WP(c).No.34962/2007 2
3. Petitioners submit that prior to their appointment,
one Smt. Rajamoni had worked as Full time Menial for 179
days during the period from 22.10.1997 to 31.3.1998. After
the tenure of the petitioners, one Raveendran was also
appointed in the school as Full Time Menial for the period
from 20.6.2001 to 15.12.2001.
4. Subsequently, Sri. Raveendran sought
regularization as Full Time Menial and a writ petition filed by
him in this behalf was dismissed by this court. Against that
judgment, Sri. Raveendran filed W.A.No.1447/2004,
resulting in Ext.P1 judgment. In that judgment, a Division
Bench of this Court held that Sri. Raveendran or the other
claimant namely Smt. Rajamoni may approach the 3rd
respondent, in the event of which the 3rd respondent shall
pass appropriate orders in accordance with rules. It is stated
that in pursuance there of parties staked their claim for
appointment as Full time Menical in the school and Smt.
Rajamoni was appointed and is continuing as Full Time
WP(c).No.34962/2007 3
Menial.
5. While so two vacancies of Peon arose and
petitioners have filed Exts.P4 and P5 representations
claiming appointments to those posts, relying on Rule 51-A
of Chapter XIV-A KER. The 3rd respondent did not respond
to the representations. Therefore, this writ petition has
been filed praying for a direction to the 3rd respondent to
appoint them to the two posts of Peon now available in the
school.
6. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It
is admitted that there are two posts of Peons lying vacant in
the school. It is stated that the DEO, Kollam by Ext.R3(a)
clarified that the vacancies are to be reported to the PSC
for direct recruitment. It is also stated that, in pursuance to
Ext.R3(a), vacancies have already been notified to the
PSC. It is also contended that, Rule 51-A is inapplicable to
the Panchayat schools and therefore the petitioners are not
entitled to claim appointment. Counsel also contended,
WP(c).No.34962/2007 4
relying on the proviso to Rule 51-A that, the tenure of the
appointment being less than one academic year, petitioners
are not entitled to the benefit of Rule 51-A of Chapter XIV-
A KER.
7. I have considered the submission made by the
counsel on either side. In so far as the applicability of Rule
51-A of Chapter XIV-A KER to the Panchayat schools is
concerned, this very contention has been repelled by this
court in the judgment in Vrinda V. State of Kerala (2000
(1) KLT 163) where it has been held that;
“If the argument of the 3rd respondent is
accepted, no teachers who were appointed for a
short duration in permanent vacancies will not get
the benefit of Rule 51-A. I do not think that such
an interpretation is possible in this case. As
already noticed, such narrow interpretation will
defenitely defeat the very purpose of Rule 51-A
which gives the right of re-appointment to
WP(c).No.34962/2007 5
teachers who were appointed temporarily for a
short duration. Therefore, I am of the definite
view that a combined reading of the Kerala
Panchayat(Spread of Education) Rules, R.1(3) of
Chapter XIV-A KER and R.51-A, it cannot be said
that the teachers appointed in the Panchayat
Schools are not entitled to the benefits of rule 51-
A of Chapter XIV-A KER.”
8. It would appear that subsequent to this Note 3 to
Rule 1 of Chapter XIV-A KER has been introduced, which
provides that, subject to Rule 51-A, candidates advised
from the Public Service Commission shall be appointed as
teachers in schools managed by the Local Self Government
Institutions. In view of the provisions contained in Rule 7 of
Chapter XXIV-B KER, provisions chapter XIV-A applies to
non teaching staff also and resultantly Rule 51-A of Chapter
XIV-A KER applies to non teaching staff in the Panchayat
WP(c).No.34962/2007 6
schools. If that be so, the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the 3rd respondent that the petitioners are not
eligible for the benefit Rule 51-A is only to be rejected.
9. Next it was contended that in terms of first proviso
to Rule 51-A, providing that the teachers who were
relieved under Rule 49 or Rule 52 shall not be entitled to
preference for appointment under Rule 51-A, unless such
teacher has minimum continued service of one academic
year as on the date of relief. It is contended that the
petitioners’ tenure was for 179 days and therefore they
cannot claim the benefit of Rule 51A.
10 . I am not in a position to accept this contention
also. This is for the reason that the proviso can apply to
the teachers relieved under Rule 49 or Rule 52. In so far as
the case of the petitioners are concerned, it is not
contended that the petitioners were relieved from service
under Rule 49 or Rule 52 in order to apply this proviso. If
that be so, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Rule
WP(c).No.34962/2007 7
51-A of Chapter XIV-A KER. Further, this entitlement of the
petitioners cannot be nullified for the reason that, acting on
Ext.R3(a) 3rd respondent has notified the vacancies to the
PSC.
Therefore the claim of the petitioners deserves
acceptance and the 3rd respondent shall necessarily do
the needful in this matter. Orders as above shall be passed
within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the
judgment.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
vi.
WP(c).No.34962/2007 8