Kerala High Court
Sheeja P.Kurian vs The State Of Kerala on 13 July, 2021
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 2920 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
SHEEJA P.KURIAN
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O. JOHN SAMUEL, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
PARUMALA SEMINARY L.P SCHOOL, PARUMALA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
TIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 101.
4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
TIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 101.
5 THE CORPORATE MANAGER
CATHOLICATE & M.D SCHOOLS, DEVALOKAM, KOTTAYAM -
686 038.
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 2920 OF 2016 2
JUDGMENT
A Lower Primary School Teacher in "Parumala Seminary L.P. School, Parumala" has approached this Court impugning Ext.P11 order of the Government, which finds favour with the proceedings of the Educational Authorities denying approval to her appointment with effect from 29/10/2012 on the ground that, since the vacancy in question arose on abolition of the shift system in the Schools, only a protected teacher or a retrenched teacher could have been accommodated.
2. The petitioner says that the view taken by the Government in Ext.P11, as also in Exts.P2, P3 and P4 of the Educational Authorities, is completely untenable, particularly because there were no retrenched teachers awaiting appointment in the School and no list of protected teachers was forwarded by the Educational Authorities to the Manager at any point of time. The petitioner WP(C) NO. 2920 OF 2016 3 asserts that, therefore, the conclusion in Ext.P11, that only a protected teacher or a retrenched teacher could have been appointed in the vacancy in question, cannot hold water; and thus prays that it be set aside.
3. I have heard Shri.Subhash Chand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri.P.M.Manoj, learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the official respondents.
4. Shri.P.M.Manoj attempted to support Ext.P11 by submitting that Government had issued an Order bearing number G.O.(P)No.92/10/G.Edn. dated 04/06/2010, making it clear that all vacancies which arise on account of abolishment of the shift system can be filled up only by retrenched teachers in the same School or by accommodating protected teachers. He submitted that since the Manager of the School did neither of this, but accommodated the petitioner to the said vacancy, it cannot be found to be legal and WP(C) NO. 2920 OF 2016 4 therefore, that the Educational Authority and Government were justified in issuing the impugned orders. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
5. Even when I hear the learned Senior Government Pleader on the afore lines, the fact remains that it is expressly conceded that the School did not have any retrenched teachers at the relevant time. As regards protected teachers, the law is now well settled that unless the Educational Authorities had furnished a list of such teachers to the Manager, the rigour of the provisions of the Government Order cannot be applied. I am fortified in my view by the judgments of this Court in Nadeera vs. State of Kerala [2011(3) KLT 790] and Moosakutty Vs. DEO, Wandoor [2009 (3) KLT 863]. .
6. I, therefore, asked the learned Senior Government Pleader as to whether there is anything on record to show that the competent WP(C) NO. 2920 OF 2016 5 Educational Authorities had furnished a list of protected teachers to the Manager at the relevant time and whether any such teachers were awaiting deployment in the Educational District or in the nearby Districts. The learned Senior Government Pleader fairly submitted that there is no such whisper either in Ext.P11 or in the other impugned orders and that he is, therefore, unable to submit affirmatively either way before this Court.
7. When I consider the afore submissions, it is clear that the rigour of the Government Order mentioned in Ext.P11 cannot apply to the case at hand because; for one, there were no retrenched teachers in the School - which fact is admitted; and for the second, there is nothing to establish that a list of protected teachers had been given to the Manager.
In the afore circumstances, I am of the view that petitioner is entitled to succeed and WP(C) NO. 2920 OF 2016 6 consequently order this writ petition and set aside Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P11; with a direction to the 4th respondent - Assistant Educational Officer to reconsider the petitioner's proposal for approval of her appointment with effect from 29/10/20212 and issue appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
It is needless to say that once such approval is granted to the petitioner, she will also be entitled to all consequential benefits arising from the same, including for future appointments under the provisions of Rule 51A, Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, if she is otherwise eligible for the same.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/14.7 WP(C) NO. 2920 OF 2016 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2920/2016 PETITIONER ANNEXURE EXHIBIT P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DT. 29.10.2012.
EXHIBIT P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCTIONAL OFFICER DT. 16.11.2012. EXHIBIT P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DT. 18.3.2013. P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F3/64784/13/DPI/K.DIS DT. 02.12.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2010-2011 DT. 04.7.2011.
EXHIBIT P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 60930/J2/11/G.EDN DT. 25.10.2011 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 44977/J2/2013/G.EDN DT. 14.10.2015 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF G.O(P) NO. 213/2015/G.EDN DT. 06.8.2015 OF THE GOVT. EXHIBIT P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 30.5.2015.
EXHIBIT P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DT. 17.8.2015. EXHIBIT P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO. 6043/2015/G.EDN DT. 29.12.2015 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO-6805/2- 017 DATED 8.4.2019