IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 26941 of 2005(G)
1. P. RADHA DEVI, MUSIC TEACHER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. THE MANAGER, MNKM HIGHER SECONDARY
6. THE PRINCIPAL/HEADMASTER,
7. SMT. K. GEETHA, MUSIC TEACHER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR)
For Respondent :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :06/08/2007
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.26941 of 2005
&
Contempt Case (C) No.1508 OF 2006
------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2007
JUDGMENT
These two cases are being disposed of by this common
judgment, since the issues involved in them are closely
interrelated.
2. The writ petitioner who is also the petitioner in the
Contempt of Court Case was appointed as a Music teacher in
the Upper Primary Section of MNKM Higher Secondary
School in the academic year 2004-2005 whereas respondent
no.7 was appointed as a Music teacher in the High School
section in the year 1992. It is not in dispute that both the
appointments had been approved by the department. While
the two teachers were continuing in the two sections of the
school under the management of respondent no.5, there arose
a division fall and both the posts of Music teachers had to be
converted as part-time. However, they were allowed to
continue on clubbing arrangement on rotation basis. To make
W.P.(C)No.26941 of 2005 &
Cont. Case (C) No.1508 OF 2006
:: 2 ::
a long story short, it need only be mentioned that when the
issue was brought up before the Director of Public
Instruction, it was ordered that since one post of music
teacher in High School section was allowed to be continued
and since the periods available under the Art group are
sufficient to sanction one specialist post, one post of eligible
music teacher be retained under protection in the school. The
District Educational Officer was directed to issue appropriate
consequential orders in this regard. True copy of the said
order issued by the Director on October 14, 2004 is on record
as Ext.P10. Subsequently, Ext.P14 order was issued by the
Deputy Director of Education on February 18, 2005 in the
light of the request made by the District Educational Officer.
In the said order, the Deputy Director issued a direction to
recall the petitioner to her parent school after cancelling the
redeployment. Grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition
is that the manager has not so far complied with the above
direction.
W.P.(C)No.26941 of 2005 &
Cont. Case (C) No.1508 OF 2006
:: 3 ::
3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.7, it is
admitted that she is junior by almost ten years to the
petitioner. However, it is contended by her that she was
appointed in High School Section whereas petitioner was
appointed in Upper Primary Section. It is pointed out by
respondent no.7 that consequent to Ext.P14 order issued by
the Deputy Director referred to above, the District
Educational Officer had issued Exts.P18 and P19 fixation of
staff order in the school in the academic year 2004-2005 and
2005-2006 respectively by which it was found that both the
petitioner and respondent no.7 could continue in the school
without any threat of deployment.
4. Petitioner has filed the Contempt of Court Case
aggrieved by the above action of the department. The
contention of the petitioner is that the manager had to
accommodate her immediately when Ext.P14 order was
issued and the action of the department was in fact an
attempt to interfere with the administration of justice.
W.P.(C)No.26941 of 2005 &
Cont. Case (C) No.1508 OF 2006
:: 4 ::
Anyhow, I do not propose to deal with that issue any further,
in view of the order the I propose to pass in these two cases.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the manager
and respondent no.7 that the apprehension of the petitioner
that her seniority will be ignored is totally misconceived and
without any basis. Since 2004-2005 petitioner had been
continuing in the school whereas respondent no.7 had been
working as a part time teacher on clubbing arrangement. It is
further submitted by learned counsel for the manager that
petitioner’s position will never be threatened, particularly in
view of the amendment to rule 6(b) of Chapter XXIII of Kerala
Education Rule, in the year 2005. He further submits that if
in the eventuality of any one of the teachers being faced with
the threat of retrenchment, it will only be respondent no.7
who would be retrenched since she is admittedly the junior.
In other words, it is made clear by the manager that
petitioner’s position will never be under threat, particularly
in view of the amendment because she was appointed after
W.P.(C)No.26941 of 2005 &
Cont. Case (C) No.1508 OF 2006
:: 5 ::
1979 and her appointment was also approved. In that view of
the matter, I do not deem it necessary to deal with the other
contentions raised by the petitioner or respondent no.7 and it
is also not necessary to refer to the other orders of the
department.
Writ petition and the Contempt of Court Case are closed
recording the submissions made on behalf of the manager.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
jes