Kerala High Court
P.T.Kavitha vs State Of Kerala
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/27TH POUSHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 22254 of 2016 (F)
-----------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S) :
-------------------------
P.T.KAVITHA,
HSA (NATURAL SCIENCE),
GUHANANTHAPURAM HIGH SCHOOL,
CHAVARA SOUTH P.O,KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN -691 584.
BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SRI.R.REJI
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
SRI.B.BIPIN
SRI.ARUN BOSE
RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 033.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION),
KOLLAM-691 009.
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KOLLAM, PIN- 691 009.
5. THE MANAGER,
GUHANANTHAPURAM HIGH SCHOOL,
CHAVARA SOUTH P.O,KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN- 691 584.
* ADDITIONAL R6 IMPLEADED
6. THE HEADMISTRESS,
GUHANANTHAPURAM HIGH SCHOOL,
CHAVARA SOUTH P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN- 691 584.
* ADDITIONAL R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.08.206 IN
I.A.NO. 13212 OF 2016.
..2/-
..2..
WP(C).No. 22254 of 2016 (F)
-----------------------------------------
** ADDITIONAL R7 IMPLEADED
7. S.ANISA,
WIFE OF K.G.AJITH, AGED 41 YEARS,
HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SOCIAL SCIENCE),
GUHANANDAPURAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
(DEPLOYED AS CRC CO-ORDINATOR, BRC, CHAVARA).
** ADDITIONAL R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.12.2016
IN I.A.NO. 13376 OF 2016.
R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. NISHA BOSE
ADDL. R7 BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17-01-2017, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO. 35366 OF 2016, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 22254 of 2016 (F)
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION FOR THE ACADEMIC
YEAR 2014-2015.
P2 TRUE COPY OF TH E STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE ACADEMIC
YEAR 2015-16 DATED 11/04/2016.
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
MANAGER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT R6(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION DATED 17.10.2016.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
P.V.ASHA, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). Nos. 22254 & 35366 of 2016
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2017
JUDGMENT
Both these cases are filed by the same petitioner and against the same respondents and hence heard together. The petitioner who is working as HSA (Natural Science) under the 5th respondent School is aggrieved by the reduction of post in the subject Natural Science in the staff fixation of the School for the year 2015-16 and consequential orders passed by the District Educational Officer in Ext.P2 rendering her surplus.
2. The petitioner commenced her service in an aided School under the 5th respondent as UPSA on 2.6.1997. She got promotion as HSA (Natural Science) with effect from 1.6.2011 onwards. While so the District Educational Officer issued Ext P2 staff fixation proceedings for the academic year 2015-16. In Ext.P2 proceedings, the total number of posts of HSAs got reduced from 10 to 9. The number of posts of HSA (Natural Science) sanctioned in the year 2014-15 was two, which was reduced to one in the year 2015-16, as can be seen from Ext.P1, staff fixation for the year 2014-15 and Ext.P2 W.P.(C). Nos. 22254 & 35366 of 2016 2 staff fixation proceedings for the year 2015-16. At the same time, there occurred one retirement vacancy of HSA (Social Science) consequent to the retirement of one Smt.Baby Girija on 31.05.2016. Ext.P2 staff fixation order itself shows that Smt Anisa, HSA (Social Studies), who is the additional 6th respondent, was working as BRC Co-ordinator at Chavara, on retrenchment from the School. It would also show that Mrs. Preetha and N. Vasanthakumari, who are H.S.A (Physical Science) having continuous service from 14.1.1975 and 05.07.2006 respectively were being accommodated against the posts of H.S.A (English) in accordance with the G.O.(MS) No.11/2002/G.Edn dated 07.1.2002. The number of posts sanctioned in the staff fixation are Physical Science -(2), Natural Science- (1), Mathematics -(2), Social Science -(2) and English -(2) with a total number of 9 posts.
3. According to the petitioner, when there are 9 posts and on account of the retirement of Smt. Baby Girija, the number of teachers were also 9 and therefore the staff fixation order itself is erroneous and the petitioner should have been allowed to continue in the 9th post, considering her service as H.S.A from 01.06.2011 onwards with continuous service in the School from 2.06.1997 onwards.
W.P.(C). Nos. 22254 & 35366 of 2016 3
4. The additional 6th respondent got impleaded and filed a petition for vacating the interim order. According to her, she worked as UPSA in the School for the period from 29.11.2002 and 29.3.2011; as HSA from 05.08.2003 to 03.03.2004 and from 2.6.2004 to 4.07.2005. Thereafter, she worked as UPSA from 15.7.2005 to 14.7.2006 and subsequent to that she was working as Co-ordinator.
5. There arose vacancy of HSA Social Science on retirement of Smt.Baby Girija. The additional 6th respondent claimed that vacancy and she had approached this Court in W.P.C No. 23798/16. Then this Court directed the Deputy Director of Education to consider and pass orders on her claim, after hearing the petitioner and the Manager. Consequent to this Ext.R6(a) order dated 17.10.2016 was passed by the Dy.Director of Education, in which the claim of Smt Anisa was upheld and it was ordered that being a retrenched teacher, she should be re-appointed by the Manager and on her being recalled to this School her appointment was liable to be approved.
6. However, the case of the learned Government Pleader and the additional 6th respondent is that the W.P.(C). Nos. 22254 & 35366 of 2016 4 petitioner is not qualified for appointment as HSA (Eng) since she does not have B.Ed in English and moreover, two posts available in HSA (Eng) are already occupied by Senior Physical Science hands. Those two posts are occupied by the Physical Science teachers having continuous service from 1998-2000 respectively and moreover, there is no posts to accommodate those teachers in Physical Science vacancies. Therefore, the question of accommodating petitioner in English vacancy does not arise.
7. I heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on either side and the learned Govt Pleader.
8. The only question which arises for determination is whether an HSA (Natural Science ) can be accommodated in the vacancy of HSA(Social Science), which arose consequent to retirement of Smt. Baby Girija on 31.05.2006. Petitioner also raised a claim for accommodating her in the post of HSA English saying that she is fully qualified.
9. The petitioner does not have a case that she is a qualified for appointment as HSA (Social Science). Ext.P2 staff fixation order would show that, there is only one post for HSA (Natural Science) occupied by a senior hand. Petitioner has been rendered surplus on account of the reduction of post. W.P.(C). Nos. 22254 & 35366 of 2016 5 At the same time, vacancy which arose in Social Science with effect from 1.06.2016 on retirement of Smt. Baby Girija cannot be filled up by a teacher, who is qualified for appointment as HSA (Natural Science). The staff fixation order is issued in accordance with various provisions contained in Rules 4, 6, 11 and 12 of chapter XXIII of KER and in accordance with the subject ratio prescribed as per the orders issued by the Govt/ Director of Public Instruction under Rule 11 thereof. However petitioner does not have any case that the staff fixation order is passed in violation of the ratio or that the posts sanctioned for Social Science or for Natural Science is not correct. The subject requirement as well as subject ratio for fixing the staff required for each academic year are prescribed in order to see that the pupils are imparted studies in the respective subjects by teachers who are qualified in each subject. It is after following the subject ratio prescribed, that the staff fixation order has been issued as provided under the provisions contained in Chapter XXIII of KER.
10. Under the above circumstances, the claim of the petitioner to continue in the post of H.S.A (SocialScience) cannot be accepted. Ext.R6(a) order has been passed by the Dy.Director of Education after considering the claims of the W.P.(C). Nos. 22254 & 35366 of 2016 6 parties in accordance with the rules. Therefore, recalling of the additional 6th respondent against the vacancy in HSA (Social Science) cannot be said to be incorrect or illegal. Just because the petitioner has been continuing right from 1997 as UPSA or as HSA from from 2011, or because the additional 6th respondent, was deployed as BMC Co-ordinator, petitioner cannot claim that she should be accommodated in the 6th respondent School itself when there is no vacancy for her and when there is requirement of Social Science hand. It is the interest of the pupils which should have paramount importance and not whether the teachers are getting payment irrespective of the work they are doing.
11. The claim of the petitioner to be accommodated in the post of H.S.A (English) cannot also be accepted as the two posts sanctioned for English are occupied by two Physical Science teachers having continuous service since the year 1998 and 2000 in the light of the protection granted to them from retrenchment in G.O.(MS)No.11/2002/G.Edn dated 07.01.2002 which is subsequently incorporated in Rule 6 I of Chapter XXIII of K.E.R. They were teachers in core subjects at the time of creation of the post of H.S.A (English) in the year 2002, when the subject ratio was changed from 1:1:1 to W.P.(C). Nos. 22254 & 35366 of 2016 7 1:1:1:1. Moreover petitioner does not have B.Ed in English also.
12. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
13. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner was allowed to continue on the basis of the said order. The salary due to her upto the the date of this judgment shall be paid to her within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
14. Since, I have already upheld Ext.R6(a), which is challenged in W.P.(C) No.35366/2016, my findings in the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 22254/2016 would conclude this writ petition also.
Accordingly, both these writ petitions are dismissed Sd/-P.V.ASHA, Judge lsn