IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 964 of 2009()
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Petitioner
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
Vs
1. RESMI SASI,UPSA,PANCHAYAT U.P.SCHOOL,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
4. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SMT.P.V.ASHA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :07/01/2010
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
------------------------------
W.A. No.964 of 2009
------------------------------
Dated this, the 7th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition are the
appellants. The 1st respondent herein was the writ petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are the following:
The 1st respondent/writ petitioner was an applicant for
appointment to the post of UPSA (Malayalam) in Ernakulam
District, when PSC invited applications for the same. She was
included in Ext.P2 rank list published by the PSC on
30.12.2006. The said list was intended for advising candidates
to the schools run by the Grama Panchayats also. The
Kalloorkad Grama panchayat made a requisition dated
8.7.2008 to the District Office of the PSC for advice of one
candidate to the post of UPSA in the school run by it.
Pursuant to the said requisition, the PSC advised the
W.A. No.964/2009
– 2 –
petitioner for appointment in that Panchayat school as per
Ext.P3 dated 28.7.2008. The Panchayat Secretary appointed
her in the Vellaramkallu U.P.School run by the Panchayat as
per Ext.P4 order dated 13.8.2008. She joined duty in that
school on 29.8.2008. The Secretary of the Grama Panchayat,
as the Manager of the School, forwarded a proposal for
approval of her appointment to the Assistant Educational
Officer, Kalloorkadu. The said officer by Ext.P7 proceedings
dated 1.12.2008 rejected approval of her appointment. The
D.E.O. found that, as per the staff fixation order for the year
2008-2009, the total student strength of the school from
standard 1 to VII was only 41 and therefore, it is an
uneconomic school. As per the relevant orders, the vacancies
in an uneconomic school can be filled up only by a protected
teacher. If the duration of the vacancy is less than one
academic year, the vacancy can be filled up only by a teacher
on daily wage basis. On the above basis, approval of her
appointment was rejected.
W.A. No.964/2009
– 3 –
In the above background, the petitioner approached this
Court challenging Ext.P7 and also seeking consequential
reliefs. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides,
disposed of the Writ Petition issuing the following directions:
“If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order
passed by the Assistant Educational Officer,
it will be open to her to challenge the same in
other appropriate proceedings before the
competent authority. If the Assistant
Educational Officer finds that the petitioner
cannot be accommodated in the school run by
the Kalloorkad Grama Panchayat, he shall take
necessary steps to shift the petitioner to
another school run either by the department
themselves or by any other local authority, in
Ernakulam District. I also direct that
irrespective of the decision taken by the
Assistant Educational Officer, the petitioner
will be entitled to salary and emoluments for
the period during which she has worked in the
school run by the Kalloorkad Grama
Panchayat, for the reason that she did not
intend to work gratuitously and was forced to
work in the school only by reason of the
advice by the Commission and consequential
appointment by the Manager. Arrears of
salary and allowances payable to the
petitioner shall be computed and disbursed
within two months from today.”
W.A. No.964/2009
– 4 –
Feeling aggrieved by the above directions, the appellants
have preferred this appeal.
3. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The
Panchayat, which is the Educational Agency, and its
Secretary, who is the Manager, without any regard to the
relevant Government Orders have sent requisition to the PSC
which resulted in advice of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner.
If she was not advised to that Panchayat School, she would
have got employment in some other Government U.P.School.
This is evident from the fact that her juniors in the rank list
had already been advised and appointed as evident from
Ext.P10. So, we think that the Panchayat should be held
responsible for payment of salary to the petitioner for the
period she has actually worked in that school, that is, from
29.8.2008 to 9.7.2009, the date on which she was actually
relieved though the notional date of relief is 1.12.2008. This
the Panchayat shall pay within one month from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment. The learned counsel
for the 1st respondent submitted that she has already been
W.A. No.964/2009
– 5 –
advised and appointed in a Government School in December,
2009. The 1st respondent’s claim for restoration of seniority
etc. are left open.
The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.
(K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
ps