Kerala High Court
Manager vs State Of Kerala on 7 January, 2020
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.29945 OF 2014(P)
PETITIONER/S:
MANAGER,M.V. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
ARUMANOOR, POOVAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 525.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL
EDUCATION(H),SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 KIRAN ANAND S
ANANDA BHAVAN, SWADESABHIMANI NAGAR,
NEYYATTINKARA - 695 101.
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONALAL OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA 695 121
4 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPUIRAM 695 001.
ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED:
5
ASWATHY U.S
HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ENGLISH), M.V.H.S.S ARUMANOOR,
POOVAR PO- 695 525, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
(ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 28.02.2018 IN I.A.NO. 3521/2018.)
R1 BY SMT. MARY BEENA JOSEPH, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
R1 BY ADV. SRI.JEEVAN RAJEEV
R1 BY ADV. SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE
R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2019,
ALONG WITH WP(C). NOS. 38327, 6069 & 6629 OF 2018(C), THE COURT ON
07.01.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629
& 38327 of 2018 :2:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.38327 OF 2018(M)
PETITIONER:
KIRAN ANAND S.
AGED 36 YEARS
ANANDHA BHAVAN, SWADESHABHIMANI NAGAR,
NEYYATINKARA, PIN 695121.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
SMT.V.A.HARITHA
SRI.SIDHARTH B PRASAD
SRI.D.SREEKANTH
SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL
KUM.GAYATHRI MURALEEDHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 685 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
3 THE MANAGER,
M.V.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ARUMANOOR, POOVAR PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 525
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
NEYYATTINKARA-695 121
5 C.A.REJI,
W/O. AJITH LAL,UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
M.V.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ARUMANOOR,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURA DISTRICT, PIN-695 525
R1,R2 & R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. MARY BEENA
JOSEPH
R3 BY ADV. SMT.APARNA RAJAN
R3 BY ADV. SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.12.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C). NOS. 29945/2014, 6069 &
6629 OF 2018, THE COURT ON 07.01.2020, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629
& 38327 of 2018 :3:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.6069 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:
KARTHIKA L.
UPSA, MVHSS ARUMANOOR, POOVAR,
NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 121
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
NEYYATTINKAR- 695 121,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
5 M.V.H.S.S. ARUMANOOR
ARUMANOOR, POOVAR, NEYYATTINKARA- 695 121,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
6 REJI.C.A
UPSA, MVHSS ARUMANOOR, POOVAR, NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 121
*7 KIRAN ANAND
UPSA, MVHSS ARUMANOOR, POOVAR, NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 121
*THE ADDRESS OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT IS SUBSTITUTED AS
KIRAN ANAND, ANANDA BHAVAN, SWADESHABHIMANI NAGAR,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 121,
AS PER ORDER DATED 02.07.2018 IN IA NO. 11282/2018)
W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629
& 38327 of 2018 :4:
8 U.S ASWATHY
UPSA, MVHSS ARUMANOOR, POOVAR, NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 121
R1, R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
R1 BY ADV. SMT.V.A.HARITHA
R1, R5 BY ADV. SMT.LAKSHMI RAMADAS
R1, R6 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.D.SREEKANTH
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SIDHARTH B PRASAD
R1, R8 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN
R1 TO R4 BY BY SMT. MARY BEENA JOSEPH, SR.GOVERNMENT
PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.12.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C). NOS. 29945/2014 & 6629 & 38327 OF
2018, THE COURT ON 07.01.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629
& 38327 of 2018 :5:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.6629 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
ASWATHY.U.S,
HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ENGLISH), M.V.H.S.S.,ARUMANOOR,
POOVAR P.O. 695 525 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, OF
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
NEYYATTINKARA-695 121.
4 THE MANAGER,
M.V.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ARUMANOOR,POOVAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 525.
5 KIRAN ANAND S
ANANDA BHAVAN, SWADESABHIMANI NAGAR,
NEYYATTINKARA-695 121.
R1 BY SMT. MARY BEENA JOSEPH, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R1, R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
R1 BY ADV. SMT.V.A.HARITHA
R1 BY ADV. SRI.JEEVAN RAJEEV
R1 BY ADV. SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE
R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.12.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).29945/2014 & 6069 & 38327 OF 2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629
& 38327 of 2018 :6:
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2020.
JUDGMENT
The writ petitions are materially connected in respect of the direction issued by the State Government as per Ext.P13 order dated 17.10.2014 directing the Manager of MVHSS, Arumanoor, Thiruvananthapuram District to re-appoint one Kiran Anand S as Upper Primary School Assistant in the school, and the grievance of the teachers regarding non- approval of appointments prospectively on account of the pendency of W.P.(C) No. 29945 of 2014 filed by the Manager. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to pass this common judgment. The facts and documents available from W.P.(C) No. 29945 of 2014 are relied upon to dispose of the writ petitions.
2. The brief material facts for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
The second respondent in the said writ petition namely, Sri. Kiran Anand S was appointed as UPSA in M.V. Higher Secondary School, Arumanoor on 01.07.2009. His appointment was made in the resultant promotion vacancy of Smt. K.B. Sheeba Rani, who was appointed as HSA against an additional division vacancy sanctioned for the academic year 2009-2010. But, the appointment of Smt. Sheeba Rani was not W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629 & 38327 of 2018 :7:
approved by the Education Department, as there was no sanctioned post on the creation of additional divisions both in Aided and Government Schools in the State. As a result, the appointment of Sri. Kiran Anand was also not approved. However, he was continuing as a teacher in the above school. While working so, the Manager of the School terminated him from service on 06.12.2010 alleging misbehaviour and misconduct mainly on an unethical relationship with a music teacher in the school. She was also suspended from service for the same reason. The Manager, thereafter, appointed Smt. Aswathy U.S., the 5th respondent in the writ petition, on 21.12.2010 in the place of Sri. Kiran Anand. Now, the appointment of Smt. Aswathy was rejected by the Department and she was included in the package. The appointment of Smt. Sheeba Rani was approved as HSA with effect from 01.06.2011 as per GO(RT) No. 199/2011/G. Edn. dated 01.10.2011. Hence, the vacancy of UPSA was established as on that date.
3. It was found that had Sri. Kiran Anand continued in service, his appointment also would have been approved with effect from 01.06.2011 as his appointment was in the resultant vacancy of the promotion of Smt. Sheeba Rani as HSA. But, the fact remains, he was terminated from service for the alleged misbehaviour. Anyhow, based on a petition submitted W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629 & 38327 of 2018 :8:
by Sri. Kiran Anand, the matter was enquired into by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Super Check Cell and after examining the matter in detail, the Government, as per Government letter dated 05.11.2013 bearing No. 75687/H1/2012/G. Edn. directed the Manager of the School to appoint Sri. Kiran Anand in the next arising vacancy in the school.
4. However, aggrieved by the said Government Order, the Manager filed W.P.(C) No. 31072 of 2013 before this Court. As per the judgment dated 13.06.2014, the said Government Order was set aside and the State Government was directed to re-consider and pass appropriate orders in the matter regarding the approval, after affording an opportunity of being heard in person to the Manager and Sri. Kiran Anand within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It was accordingly, the Government heard the Manager and Sri. Kiran Anand and has passed Ext.P13 order, which is impugned in the said writ petition. The basic contention advanced by the Manager is that Sri. Kiran Anand has no statutory right for re-appointment in the school, as he was not an approved teacher, and the re-appointment arises only in cases come under Rule 51A Chapter XIV A KER. That apart, it is contended that the appointment of Sri. Kiran Anand was not approved by the Educational Authorities and the W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629 & 38327 of 2018 :9:
appointment of another teacher to the vacancy was subsequently approved by the Department and therefore, the request made by Sri. Kiran Anand to re-appoint him deserves no consideration.
5. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for Sri. Kiran Anand contended that the probation of teachers is one year and Sri. Kiran Anand completed one year probation on 30.06.2010 and during the period of his service, there was no complaint regarding his work or conduct from any corner. It is also submitted that on 06.12.2010, the Manager issued a memo alleging serious charges against him and without conducting any proper enquiry., the Manager straight away terminated him from service. It is also submitted that as per Rule 6C of Chapter XIV A KER, the probation shall be discharged only with the approval of the Educational Authorities. But, the Manager, did not seek permission of the educational authorities, which is a blatant violation of the Rules. The State Government, after hearing all the parties concerned, has found that Sri.Kiran Anand was terminated from service without observing the conditions stipulated in the KER and the charges levelled against him were based on hypothetical concern and apprehensions. Therefore, termination of the service of an incumbent based on such flimsy reasons and which cannot be proved under any W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629 & 38327 of 2018 : 10 :
circumstances, is undesirable. It is also found that Sri. Kiran Anand was appointed to a vacancy which arose on the promotion of Smt. Sheeba Rani as HSA and the promotion appointment was approved with effect from 01.06.2011. In that view of the matter, if Sri. Kiran Anand continued in the school, his appointment would have been approved with effect from 01.06.2011. It is also found that the service of Sri. Kiran Anand was terminated alleging unfair relationship with another teacher, who was also suspended from service. However, she was later reinstated. That apart, it is found that the charges levelled against Sri. Kiran Anand was not proved and the charges are only mere allegations made under mala fide reasons. After finding so, it was also held that termination of the service of a teacher by the Manager without complying with the procedure laid down under Rule 75 Chapter XIV A KER is invalid and so also, the Manager terminated the service of Sri. Kiran Anand during the pendency of the application in respect of the appointment of approval before the DPI, which is against Rules. So also, the additional 5th respondent's i.e., Aswathy U.S's, appointment was approved with effect from 01.06.2011, and had Sri. Kiran Anand continued in service, his appointment would have been approved. Therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Manager was directed to re-appoint W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629 & 38327 of 2018 : 11 :
Sri. Kiran Anand as UPSA or in any other post based on his qualifications and willingness in the vacancy that arose in the school immediately after 01.06.2011.
6. The paramount contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that Ext.P13 order is contrary to Rules 49 and 52 of Chapter XIV A KER. So also, it is submitted that the only power of the Government under Chapter XIV A KER is the power conferred on it as revisional authority under Rule 92 of the said Chapter and therefore, the impugned order is not an order in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 92. On the other hand, Sri. Kiran Anand has filed a detailed counter affidavit fully supporting Ext.P13 order passed by the State Government, and has also produced Ext.R2(b) representation, filed before the Government seeking direction for his re-appointment. Ext.R2(c) is an enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Secretary of the Super Check Cell, taking into account the submissions made by the Manager and Sri. Kiran Anand and finding that the termination of Sri. Kiran Anand is not in accordance with law.
The State Government has also filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying the stand adopted in Ext.P13 order.
7. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. P. Ravindran assisted by Adv. Aparna Rajan, the learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt. Mary Beena W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629 & 38327 of 2018 : 12 :
Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the other writ petitions and the counsel appearing from the party respondents and I have perused the pleadings and documents on record.
8. The sole question that arises for consideration in W.P. (C) No. 29945 of 2014 is whether any manner of interference is warranted to Ext.P13 order. In my considered opinion, against Ext.P11 order passed by the State Government dated 05.11.2013, W.P.(C) No. 31072 of 2013 was preferred and as per Ext.P12 judgment, the said order was interfered with on the ground that Ext.P7 proceedings of the Manager dated 06.12.2010 was not considered and the legal point raised on behalf of the Manager was not taken into account. After setting aside the impugned Government Order, the first respondent was directed to consider and pass orders in the matter regarding the approval of the 4 th respondent after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, Manager, and Sri. Kiran Anand. Liberty was given to both parties to produce relevant records before the State Government. Apparently, on the basis of the directions issued by this Court, the Manager as well as Sri. Kiran Anand were heard and taking in to account all the inputs provided by the parties, a decision was taken by the State Government, directing the Manager to appoint Sri. Kiran Anand.
W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629 & 38327 of 2018 : 13 :
9. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, only approved teachers are entitled to get the protection of the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules. Sri. Kiran Anand was not an approved teacher by the Educational Authorities and therefore, there is no requirement for issuing any notice under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A KER. Therefore, no previous sanction of the educational authority is required as is contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Kerala Education Act, and so also, since Sri. Kiran Anand was not approved, there is no disciplinary power vested with the Government or any Educational Authority to take disciplinary proceedings.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Sri. Kiran Anand submitted that the probation of Sri. Kiran Anand was declined and therefore, no termination can be done without conducting a due enquiry. It is also submitted that as per Rule 48 of Chapter XIV A KER, no teacher shall be relieved before the expiry of the term of appointment without the previous approval of the Educational Officer.
11. Having evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar, I am of the considered opinion that the Manager, by virtue of the powers conferred under the Kerala Education Act and Rules, alone has appointed Sri. Kiran Anand. It is also an admitted fact that necessary proceedings were placed before W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629 & 38327 of 2018 : 14 :
the Educational Authorities to approve the appointment of Sri. Kiran Anand. Eventhough the application of the Manager was declined, the appeal was pending consideration before the Director of Public Instructions as is evident from Ext.P5 proceedings submitted by the Manager. Ext.P5 is dated 04.11.2010 and Ext.P6 memo dated 16.11.2010 was issued to Sri. Kiran Anand while the matter was pending before the Director of Public Instructions. So much so, it is the admitted case of the Manager that, appointment of Sri. Kiran Anand as UPSA was made against a post fell vacant consequent to the appointment of Smt. Sheeba Rani as HSA, and it was during the pendency of the approval before the DPI Sri. Kiran Anand was terminated from service. It was taking into account all these material aspects and the law on the point, the State Government has entered into clear findings in Ext.P13 order dated 17.10.2014, and directing appointment of Sri. Kiran Anand. It is also an admitted fact that allegations are made by the Manager in the order of termination against Sri. Kiran Anand to the effect that Sri. Kiran Anand used to contact a lady teacher of the school over mobile phone, and that both used to travel in the motorbike belonging to Sri. Kiran Anand.
However, no opportunity was provided to Sri. Kiran Anand to repel the contentions so raised by the Manager. It is also quite clear and evident from the allegations available from W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629 & 38327 of 2018 : 15 :
Ext.P6 that those are trivial and flimsy allegations made against a teacher as if to appear that Sri. Kiran Anand was maintaining an illicit relationship with the lady teacher. From the allegations made, it is clear that a stigma is cast upon Sri. Kiran Anand having consequences to his prospects, and in all probabilities, necessary opportunity should have been given to Sri. Kiran Anand to contest the proceedings. It is also interesting to note that eventhough the lady teacher was placed under suspension, she was later reinstated in service.
12. So also, Section 11 of the Kerala Education Act deals with the appointment of teachers in aided schools and it clearly stipulates that subject to the rules and conditions laid down by the Government, teachers of aided schools shall be appointed by the managers of such schools from among persons, who possess the qualifications prescribed under Section 10. There is no case for the Management that Sri. Kiran Anand is not having sufficient qualifications for appointment.
13. Section 12(2) stipulates that no teacher of an aided school shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank by the Manager without the previous sanction of the Officer authorised by the Government in this behalf, or placed under suspension by the Manager for a continuous period exceeding fifteen days without such previous sanction.
W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629 & 38327 of 2018 : 16 :
14. Section 12A deals with disciplinary proceedings and sub-Section (1) stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 11 or Section 12 and subject to such rules as may be prescribed, the Government or such Officer not below the rank of an Educational Officer, as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf, shall have power to take disciplinary proceeding against a teacher of an aided school and to impose upon him all or any of the penalties specified in the rules made under the Act, subject to certain conditions.
15. Therefore, the afore-discussed provisions make it clear that a teacher, who is appointed by the Manager shall not be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank by the Manager without the previous sanction of the Officer authorized by the Government in that behalf. So also, Section 12A makes it clear that the Government is vested with powers to take disciplinary action against a teacher subject to certain conditions and if that be so, if and when a Manager takes an action overlooking the provisions of law, Government is vested with power to interfere with the same. Eventhough learned Senior Counsel for the Manager relied upon Rules 49 and 52 of Chapter XIV A KER, in my considered view, they operate in different fields and has W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629 & 38327 of 2018 : 17 :
nothing to do with the issues in question. Therefore, in my considered opinion, merely because the approval of appointment of the teacher was not granted by the Government or the educational authority, that by itself will not enable the Manager to terminate the service of a teacher appointed in accordance with the Kerala Education Act and Rules, by casting a stigma. So also, Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A KER deals with the procedure for imposing major penalties, which clearly contemplates the procedure for imposing the major penalties, and there is no case for the Management that the procedure contemplated thereunder is followed in terminating the service of Sri. Kiran Anand. However, the contention advanced is that since there is no approval, the requirement as per the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules are not to be followed by the Manager. I do not think the contention so advanced by the Manager can be sustained under law since if such a course of action is permitted, it can cause disastrous results, and so also there is no enabling provision under law empowering the Manager to terminate a teacher from service without conducting due enquiry as is contemplated under the Kerala Education Act and Rules.
W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629 & 38327 of 2018 : 18 :
16. Taking into account all these factual and legal circumstances, I do not think, the State Government was misdirected in passing Ext.P13 impugned order. Moreover, this Court, in the earlier round of litigation, has directed the State Government to consider all the aspects after providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the State Government is not vested with powers to direct the Manager to reinstate Sri. Kiran Anand, cannot be sustained. In my considered opinion, Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A KER provides power to the Government to entertain a revision from any order passed by the Manager of an aided school, and can only be seen that it was exercising the said power the order impugned is passed. Moreover, even assuming that there is no provision under the KER to entertain such a representation, taking into account the entire situations alone, this Court directed the State Government to finalise the issue in the earlier round of litigation. Therefore, a clear jurisdiction is conferred on the State Government by this Court exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Taking into account all these aspects, I am of the considered opinion that the Manager has not made out any case justifying interference of this Court in writ jurisdiction. Needless to say, the said writ petition fails.
W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629 & 38327 of 2018 : 19 :
17. Insofar as W.P.(C) Nos. 6069 and 6629 of 2018 are concerned, they are filed by two teachers seeking direction to the Educational Authority to approve their appointment.
Apparently, from the pleadings put forth by the respective parties, it is clear that the approval of their appointments are kept pending since W.P.(C) No. 29945 of 2014 was pending before this Court and an interim order was also passed staying the operation of the Government Order concerning Sri.Kiran Anand. In W.P.(C) No. 6629 of 2018 filed by Smt. Aswathy U.S, it is clear that she is also seeking to quash the Government Order impugned in the writ petition filed by the Manager to the extent direction is issued to re-appoint Sri. Kiran Anand. Since I have clearly found that there is no illegality or other legal infirmities in the order passed by the State Government, I do not think, at this stage of the proceedings, any interference is possible, in the said writ petitions.
18. W.P.(C) No. 38327 of 2018 is filed by Sri. Kiran Anand seeking to implement the Government Order impugned by the Manager, and for other related and consequential reliefs. In view of the dismissal of W.P. (C) No. 29945 of 2014, Sri. Kiran Anand is entitled to get appointment in accordance with the directions contained in the Government Order. Therefore, the approval sought for by Smt. Aswathy U.S and W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629 & 38327 of 2018 : 20 :
Smt. Karthika L in the other two writ petitions are to be re- considered by the State Government by receiving representation from them taking into account the dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 29945 of 2014 filed by the Manager, and all other attendant circumstances after providing notice of hearing to all concerned. There will also be a direction to the Manager to take necessary steps to implement Ext.P13 Government Order dated 17.10.2014 at the earliest and at any rate, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If representations are received from Smt. Karthika L and Smt. Aswathy U.S or any other interested persons, it shall be considered at the earliest possible, and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of representation from them.
In the result, W.P.(C) No. 29945 of 2014 filed by the Manager is dismissed and the other writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the directions contained above.
sd/- SHAJI P CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv
W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629
& 38327 of 2018 : 21 :
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29945/2014
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1-07-09
EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER
ALONG WITH EXT.P1 DATED 1-07-09
EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEO
DATED 28-01-2010
EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION DTD 4-10-2010 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DPI DATED 4-11-2010 EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16-11- 2010.
EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MANAGER DATED 6-12-2010.
EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DPI DATED 29-03-2011.
EXHIBIT P9 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DPI DATED 18-06-2012.
EXHIBIT P10 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11-11-2013.
EXHIBIT P11 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05-11-2013.
EXHIBIT P12 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-06-2014 IN WPC NO 31072/2013 EXHIBIT P13 EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17-10-2014 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(A) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-12-2010 APPOINTING SMT. ASWATHI.
EXHIBIT R2(B) COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 09-07-2012 FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT R2(C) COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 28-11-2012 OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, SUPER CHECK OFFICER, DPI.
W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629 & 38327 of 2018 : 22 :
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38327/2018 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.07.2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 1.7.2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.01.2010 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF HE ORDER DATED 04.10.2010 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION TRIVANDRUAM EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 06.12.2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.6.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2013 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN WP(C) 29945 OF 2014 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE OF THE SAID G.O(RT) NP 343/2018/G.EDN DATED 19.01.2018 EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2018 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER DATED 07.11.2018 OF THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF 4TH RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R5(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EM 1-9869/08/DPI/K.DIS. DATED 22.04.2008.
EXHIBIT R5(b): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 35993/2008 DATED 21.12.2009.
EXHIBIT R5(c): TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 08.11.2010 ALONG WITH APPROVAL THEREON.
W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629 & 38327 of 2018 : 23 :
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6069/2018 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 12.11.2010 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE TEACHER'S BANK-2011 IN WHICH THE NAME OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT IS INCLUDED EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 12.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WPC 29945/2014 EXHIBIT P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 30.09.2015 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WPC 29945/2014 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2011-2012, BEARING NO.
D.DIS/B6/2186/DATED 4.5.2015 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/3017/16/K.DIS DATED 6.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE DEO REJECTING APPROVAL OF THE PETITIONER'S APPOINTMENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 23.11.2016 PREFERRED BY THE MANAGER AGAINST EXT.P5 ORDER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.29/2016/G.EDN DATED
29.1.2016
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.B(5)25628/2016/DDE/K.DIS DATED 31.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE MANAGER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.2.2017 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO .E.T(4)/30191/2017/DPI DATED 1.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.8.2017 IN WPC NO 27183/2017 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.343/2018/G.EDN DATED 19.1.2018 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629 & 38327 of 2018 : 24 :
EXHIBIT P7 (a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID GO(Rt) 4303/2014 DATED 17-10-2014 OF 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EM 1- 9896/08/DPI/K.DIS DATED 22-04-2008. EXHIBIT R6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(c) NO.35993/2008 DATED 21-12-2009.
EXHIBIT R6(c) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 08-11-2010 ALONG WITH APPROVAL THEREON.
EXHIBIT R7(a): TRUE COPY OF THE SAID GO(RT) 4304/2014 DATED 17.10.2014 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EM 1-9869/08/DPI/K. DIS. DATED 22.04.2008.
EXHIBIT R6(b): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 35993/2008 DATED 21.12.2009.
EXHIBIT R6(c): TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 08.11.2010 ALONG WITH APPROVAL THEREON.
W.P.(C) Nos. 29945/2014 & 6069, 6629
& 38327 of 2018 : 25 :
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6629/2018
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER WITH THE
ENDORSEMENT OF APPROVAL.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/502/2013/K.DIS
DATED 17.5.2013 OF THE D.D.E.
EXHIBIT P3: THE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.4304/2014/G.EDN
DATED 17.10.2014.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E.T.
(4)/93541/2013/D.P.I./K.DIS. DATED 1.12.2014. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.60961/H1/2014/G.EDN. DATED 30.12.2014. EXHIBTI P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E.T.(4)-
40661/14/D.P.I/K.DIS. DATED 8.6.2015.
/True Copy/ P.S to Judge.
rv