IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 33912 of 2006(K)
1. NEETHA PAUL, AGED 31 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.SABU GEORGE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :02/01/2007
O R D E R
K.K.DENESAN, J
-------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO. 33912 of 2006
-------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner stands retrenched from service for want of
adequate number of divisions and posts in the school managed by
the third respondent. This happened while she was having to her
credit service of 9 years and 2 months. It is contended that the
petitioner can be granted the benefit of protection if the said benefit
is extended to all those who were in service or those who had
commenced service in the academic year 1996-1997. Another
contention is that, by Ext.P3 order, a teacher having lesser length of
service than the requisite service length has been granted the benefit
of protection, and therefore, similar benefits shall be granted to the
petitioner also. These two contentions have been rejected by the
Government as per Ext.P9 while considering the representations filed
by the petitioner. Hence, Ext.P9 order of the Government is under
challenge.
2. In order to sustain the challenge against Ext.P9, the petitioner
has taken up the contention that the date stipulated in Ext.P2 G.O.
namely, 14.7.1997 for identifying teachers who are entitled for the
benefit of protection is arbitrary and discriminatory. According to the
W.P.(C)No.33912/2006 2
petitioner, the date 14.7.1997 has no relevance. If the object of
granting protection has to be extended to the teachers, the same
should be given to all those who commenced service in the relevant
academic year, namely 1997-1998 and shall not be limited to
teachers who commenced service on or before 14.7.1997.
3. I am not impressed by the above contention. 14th July of
every year has got relevance as far as aided school teachers governed
by the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules are concerned. 14th
July is the date fixed for fixing the staff strength of the schools
concerned by the educational officer. The number of divisions will be
determined as on that date. The contention that once the
Government decides that appointments made before 14th July 1997
can be taken note of for the purpose of protection, the same
concession should be extended to appointments made thereafter also
cannot be accepted. There is nothing arbitrary or irrational in fixing
14th July 1997 as the cut off date.
4. Protection is a concession granted by the Government by
issuing executive orders from time to time. It is not a right or benefit
relatable to any statutory provision. In fact, Government have passed
orders notwithstanding the statutory provisions contained in the
Kerala Education Rules. Hence it is not proper for this Court to extend
W.P.(C)No.33912/2006 3
the benefit of such concessions to more categories of teachers. The
petitioner unfortunately could not commence service prior to 14th July
1997. She do not have the requisite period of service to come within
the purview of Ext.P2 G.O. granting the benefit of protection.
5. I find no error in Ext.P9. The stand taken by the Government
that the fact that deviation made in the case of one teacher shall not
set a bad precedent does not call for interference. It is the correct
stand. More instances of deviation by the Government need not
happen or perpetuated at the instance of this Court. It is not just and
proper to direct the Government to violate its own general orders and
grant special concessions to any individual or group of individuals.
The writ petition is devoid of merit. Dismissed.
K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE
css/
W.P.(C)No.33912/2006 4