IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8039 of 2008(F)
1. SRI.V.SURESH, S/O.C.VELUKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE D.E.O., PALAKKAD.
5. THE MANAGER,
6. SMT. SHYAMA,
7. SMT. RESHMI,
8. SMT. INDHU,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
For Respondent :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :01/06/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.8039 of 2008-F
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P16 and P18 orders by which the
the conversion of post of a Drawing Teacher to that of Music Teacher has
been rejected.
2. A vacancy arose in the school due to the retirement of a Drawing
Teacher. The Manager sought for conversion of the post of Drawing
Teacher into a Music Teacher as per Ext.P5 and appointed the petitioner as
Music Teacher. Ext.P5 was rejected by the District Educational Officer
without any reason. Consequently, the approval was also rejected. An
appeal was filed before the Deputy Director of Education against these
orders and Exts.P7 and P8 orders were passed by the Deputy Director of
Education. As per Ext.P7, a post of Music Teacher was sanctioned instead
of Drawing Teacher. As per Ext.P8, the District Educational Officer was
directed to pass fresh orders regarding the approval of appointment in the
light of Ext.P7. Again, by Ext.P16 the District Educational Officer refused
to approve the appointment on the ground that no protected teachers have
been accommodated in the school.
wpc 8039/2008 2
3. Respondents 6 to 8 are newly appointed teachers in the very same
school whose appointments have been approved without taking any
objection regarding the non appointment of protected teachers. Exts.R8(a)
to R8(c) are the said orders.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the insistence for
appointment of a protected teacher, so as to deny approval of appointment
of the petitioner cannot be said to be correct in the light of Exts.P11 and P21
orders passed by the Government as well as the Director of Public
Instruction. The scheme of appointment of protected teachers in newly
sanctioned and newly upgraded schools after 1979 was formulated by the
Government as per Govt. Order dated 28.6.2002 and by Ext.P11, revised
orders were passed. The obligation under Ext.P11 will only be that the
Manager should appoint at least one teacher from the list of protected
teachers. Ext.P21 is the circular issued by the Director of Public Instruction
in respect of schools which were started prior to 1990 or upgraded before
that date. One vacancy can be earmarked for appointment of protected
teachers. There cannot be any objection regarding the approval of
appointment of other teachers.
5. Therefore, the obligation of the Manager is mainly to appoint one
protected teacher in the school. Going by the circulars issued by the
wpc 8039/2008 3
Director of Public Instruction, the Deputy Director of Education has to
forward a list of protected teachers to the Manager for making appointment.
In this case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far no such
list has been forwarded. This is supported by Ext.P19 which is a proposal
submitted by the Manager to the Deputy Director of Education. The
Manager has requested to supply a list of protected teachers (Social
Science) for appointment. Again, by Ext.P20, the details of the vacancy in
H.S.A. (Social Science) have also been forwarded. Learned counsel
appearing for the Manager submitted that so far no such list has been
forwarded by the Deputy Director of Education. A letter dated 14.1.2009
addressed by the District Educational Officer, Palakkad to the Deputy
Director of Education, Palakkad was also placed for perusal, wherein, in
respect of the request made by the Manager, the D.E.O. has recommended
that the request of the Manager to appoint one protected teacher as H.S.A.
(Social Science) may be considered and accordingly one teacher may be
accommodated. Therefore, the same will satisfy the requirement of the
circulars and there cannot be any objection regarding the approval of
appointment of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the judgment of this court in Writ Petition No.2563/2008 wherein it
was held that if a list of protected hands has not been made available as
wpc 8039/2008 4
required, the Manager cannot be faulted for not appointing the protected
hands. It was further held that the appointment of the teacher therein
ought to have been approved.
6. In the above view of the matter, Ext.P16 is quashed. The order
Ext.P18 passed by the Government to the extent it adversely affects the
right of the petitioner for getting approval is also set aside. The appointment
of the petitioner is liable to be approved. The 4th respondent will take up the
matter afresh and pass fresh orders regarding the approval of appointment
of the petitioner in accordance with Exts.P7 and P8 bearing in mind the
principles stated in Exts.P11 and P21 also. Appropriate orders will be
passed within a period of two months and consequential monetary benefits
also will be released to the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/