IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33674 of 2010(H)
1. PUSHPAJAN, FULL TIME MENIAL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :19/11/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.33674 OF 2010
------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is working as Full Time Menial
in A.K.S.G.H.S. Malappattam in Kannur District.
His grievance is that he is denied the benefit of
by transfer appointment as Laboratory Assistant in
Government Higher Secondary School.
2. It is stated that as per the Special Rules,
the method of appointment to the post of Laboratory
Assistant in Government Higher Secondary Schools is
prescribed. According to the Special Rules, the
post of Lab Assistant comes under category No.4
of Rule 3. Rule 3 provides the method of
appointment (1) by direct recruitment and (2) by
transfer from among qualified last grade employees
in the schools, at the ratio 75:25. According to
the petitioner, Full Time Menial is a last grade
employee and accordingly, the 25% quota reserved
for by transfer appointment as Laboratory Assistant
W.P.(C).No.33674 OF 2010 2
should be available to Full Time Menial as well. It is
pointed out by the petitioner that on earlier
occasions, several Full Time Menials, placed in the
same position as that of the petitioner, were appointed
as Laboratory Assistants in Higher Secondary Schools.
Ext.P1 proceedings of the Director of Higher Secondary
Education dated 17.12.2004 is relied on in that
context. It is stated that thereafter, the Director of
Higher Secondary Education issued Exts.P2 and P3
orders, by which the Full Time Menials were excluded
from the purview of appointment as Laboratory
Assistants. Pointing out the grievance of the
petitioner, he submitted Ext.P4 representation dated
27.9.2010 to the Director, Higher Secondary Education.
Ext.P4 is pending disposal.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the view taken by the Director of
Higher Secondary Education, on a perusal of Exts.P2 and
P3 orders, appears to be that Full Time Menials working
in Government Schools do not satisfy the definition of
W.P.(C).No.33674 OF 2010 3
“Qualified last grade employees in schools” in Rule 3
of the Kerala Higher Secondary Education Subordinate
Service Rules. The counsel submits that this view is
clearly wrong and Full Time Menial certainly is a last
grade employee. The Director of Higher Secondary
Education has to take a decision in the matter in view
of the alleged conflicting stand in Exts.P1 to P3, so
that, matters would be clear and there shall be no
ambiguity creating confusion among the aspirants for
being appointed as Laboratory Assistants.
4. The learned Government Pleader, on
instructions, submitted that the seniority list for
appointment as Laboratory Assistants is to be prepared
by the General Education Department and the Director of
Public Instruction is the authority to do so. It is
therefore, submitted that the petitioner has to submit
a representation to the Director of Public
Instruction.
W.P.(C).No.33674 OF 2010 4
5. In reply, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the appointing authority is
the Director of Higher Secondary Education and
therefore, Ext.P4 was submitted to the proper
authority. The seniority list prepared by the General
Education Department becomes relevant only at the time
of appointment. In short, the submission is that the
question whether the Full Time Menial comes under the
category of persons who could be appointed in the 25%
quota for appointment as Laboratory Assistants is a
matter for the decision of the Director of Higher
Secondary Education and not of the General Education
Department.
6. Taking into account the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that the
Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the second
respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P4
representation.
W.P.(C).No.33674 OF 2010 5
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as
follows:
The Director of Higher Secondary Education shall
consider and dispose of Ext.P4 representation dated
27.9.2010 submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously
as possible and, at any rate within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard
to the petitioner. The Director of Higher Secondary
Education would be entitled to make reference to the
Director of Public Instruction or the Secretary to the
Government, or both, before taking a final decision on
Ext.P4. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ
Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the
Director of Higher Secondary Education.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
cms