IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 8168 of 2007(V)
1. S.PRASANNA KUMARI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE MANAGER,
5. SRI.K.R.JAYAKUMAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :06/06/2007
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C). NOS. 8168, 9621 & 14593 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The short but interesting question that has cropped up in these
three writ petitions is whether the withdrawal of relinquishment of
promotion by the petitioner to the post of Headmaster is legally valid
and sustainable.
2. Relevant facts which are necessary for disposal of these cases
are stated briefly hereunder:
3. The post of Headmaster in the P.T.M. Vocational Higher
Secondary School was due to fall vacant on April 1, 2006. Smt.
Prasanna Kumari, petitioner in W.P.(C). No.8168/07, (“hereinafter
referred to as the teacher”) tendered Ext.P1 letter before the Manager of
the school on October 25, 2005 relinquishing her claim for the post
“temporarily” and up to March 31, 2007. But shortly thereafter, the
teacher withdrew the relinquishment through Ext.P2 communication
dated November 7, 2005. The request for withdrawal was accepted by
the controlling officer on November 25, 2005, as revealed from Ext.P3.
WPC NO. 8168/07 Page numbers
The above order passed by the controlling officer was challenged by
the Manager (petitioner in W.P.(C). No.14593/07) before the Deputy
Director of Education. By Ext.P4 order dated April 20, 2006 the
Deputy Director allowed the appeal and held that temporary
relinquishment made by the teacher would prevail.
4. In the meanwhile, the Manager appointed Sri. K.R.
Jayakumar, the next seniormost teacher, as Headmaster, who has filed
W.P.(C). No.9621/07 to which I will refer a little later. The matter was
taken up before the Government by both the teacher and the manager.
In its order dated March 8, 2007, a copy of which is on record as
Ext.P10 in W.P.(C). No.8168/07, the Government took the view that
approval of appointment of Sri. Jayakumar as Headmaster from April
1, 2006 to March 31, 2007 was valid. The Government further
directed that since the teacher was the seniormost High School
Assistant she be appointed as Headmistress with effect from April 1,
2007. The teacher, the manager and Sri. Jayakumar, the present
incumbent, have challenged the above order passed by the Government
apparently for different reasons.
WPC NO. 8168/07 Page numbers
5. As noticed already, the only question that arises for
consideration is whether a teacher can withdraw her relinquishment for
promotion before it is accepted by the competent authority. The
imbroglio in these cases can be resolved once the above question is
answered. Therefore it is not necessary to refer to the various other
contentions raised by the parties at length.
6. It is trite that an employee can withdraw his resignation from
his job, or relinquishment of promotion to a higher post, at any point of
time before it is accepted by the authority concerned. As mentioned
earlier, the controlling officer had found that there was valid reasons
for the teacher to withdraw her relinquishment. He had held so in
Ext.P2 order. Learned counsel for the manager and the present
incumbent (Sri. Jayakumar) have raised a contention that the
relinquishment could not have been allowed to be withdrawn, since the
letter or communication in this regard was not submitted by the teacher
before the manager. But, in response to the said contention taken by the
manager, the teacher has filed an affidavit controverting the above
statement made by the manager. It has been asserted by the teacher
WPC NO. 8168/07 Page numbers
that the “withdrawal letter” was in fact handed over to Sri. Abhilash,
the son of the then manager, Smt. Santha Kumari Amma (present
manager is her husband). It is pertinent to note that Sri. Abhilash was
working as Vocational Lecturer in the same school. Anyhow, it is the
admitted position that the withdrawal letter was in fact received by the
controlling officer and he had acted on it. It is also beyond controversy
that the manager was also heard before Ext.P3 order was passed by the
controlling officer while upholding the validity of withdrawal of
relinquishment. In short, the fact remains that the controlling officer
found that the withdrawal letter was submitted by the teacher well
before the “relinquishment” was accepted. In that view of the matter,
neither the manager nor the present incumbent can be heard to say that
there was no valid withdrawal of relinquishment of promotion.
7. The question with regard to the right of an employee to
withdraw resignation has been settled by a catena of decisions of this
Court reported in Kumar v. State of Kerala (2002 (2) KLT 630),
George v. State of Kerala (1998 (2) KLT 637) & Hyderali v. State of
Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 763). Having perused the above judgments
WPC NO. 8168/07 Page numbers
carefully, I am satisfied that the rationale adopted and the principles
laid down in those judgments in the matter of withdrawal of resignation
would squarely apply in the case of withdrawal of relinquishment of
promotion also.
8. What remains to be considered is whether the teacher would
be entitled to claim the post of Headmistress from the date when it fell
due or whether she can be placed as Headmistress with effect from
April 1, 2007, as ordered by the Government. It is the admitted
position that Sri. Jayakumar was appointed as Headmaster with effect
from April 1, 2006 till March 31, 2007 and his appointment had been
approved by the District Educational Officer. It was therefore that the
Government had ordered that he could be allowed to continue till
March 31, 2007. Sri. Jayakumar has also challenged Ext.P19 order
issued by the DEO, directing him to handover charge of the school to
Smt. Prasannakumari (petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8168/07). In view of
the finding entered by me earlier, the said contention raised by Sri.
Jayakumar cannot be sustained. He has to handover charge on expiry
of his term and the manager has to appoint Smt. Prasannakumari as
WPC NO. 8168/07 Page numbers
Headmistress in compliance with the directions issued by the
Government. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the
teacher that she will be satisfied is she is allowed to function as
Headmistress from today. The above submission is recorded.
However, Sri. Jayakumar will be entitled to draw salary and allowances
attached to the post of Headmaster for the period during which he has
worked.
Therefore, W.P.(C) Nos. 9621/01 & 14593/07 are dismissed.
W.P.(C) No. 8168/07 is disposed of with a direction to the manager to
issue appropriate orders appointing the petitioner as Headmistress, if
there is no other legal impediment.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
vps
WPC NO. 8168/07 Page numbers
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
OP NO.20954/00
WPC NO. 8168/07 Page numbers
JUDGMENT
1ST MARCH, 2007