Kerala High Court
P.A.Muhammed Salim vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2021
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 7TH MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.19846 OF 2014(E)
PETITIONER:
P.A.MUHAMMED SALIM
AGED 25 YEARS
SON OF P.K.ABUBACKER,
LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
M.E.S. (EASTERN) SCHOOL, ELOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD-682030.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683101.
5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683101.
6 THE MANAGER
M.E.S.(EASTERN) SCHOOL,
EROOR, UDYOGAMANDAL (VIA) KALAMASSERY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683501.
WP(C).No.19846 OF 2014(E)
2
7 THE HEADMASTER
M.E.S.(EASTERN) SCHOOL,
ELOOR, UDYOGAMANDAL (VIA) KALAMASSERY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683501.
SRI P M MANOJ SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.19846 OF 2014(E)
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2021 The petitioner, who is stated to be working as a Lower Primary School Assistant (LPSA) in "MES Eastern School", Eloor, Ernakulam, has approached this Court impugning Exts.P3, P4, P6, P8, P11 and P14 orders, as per which, his various appointments, made through Exts.P2, P5 and P7, have been declined approval; and he consequentially seeks that the appointments, evidenced through the aforementioned orders, be directed to be approved by the 5th respondent. The petitioner also has a case that since he is entitled to be included in the 'Teachers Package' notified by the Government, the 1 st respondent must be directed to do so and prays that they be directed to disburse to his salary and allowances with effect from 01.06.2011
2. In response to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel Sri. Sajjad.M, the learned WP(C).No.19846 OF 2014(E) 4 Senior Government Pleader-Sri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that, as is evident from the impugned orders, approval to the appointments of the petitioner has been rejected because the Manager of the school had executed a bond, in terms of G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. Dated 12.01.2010, that he will appoint a protected teacher to the next arising vacancy. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that since the Manager of the school has refused to abide by the conditions of the bond executed by him, the competent Educational Authorities had no other option but to reject the petitioner's approval and he thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
3. In reply, Sri.M.Sajjad, argued that the afore contentions of the learned Senior Government Pleader cannot have legs to stand on because the requirement of execution of a bond by the Manager was lifted by the Government by issuing G.O (P)No.199/11/G.Edn dated 01.10.2011, following which it issued a letter stating that G.O.(P)No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010 has relevance only up to 01.06.2011. He says that this is evident from Ext.P15; and added that this Court had WP(C).No.19846 OF 2014(E) 5 thereafter, interdicted G.O.(P) No.199/11/G.Edn dated 01.10.2011, leading to the Government issuing Ext.P16 circular dated 11.09.2018, which, however, was later withdrawn through the G.O.(MS) No.135/19/G.Edn dated 31.08.2019. He contended that therefore, after 01.06.2011, the Government could not have insisted for appointment of protected teachers in Aided Schools and consequently, that the reasons now stated for rejection of his client's approval of appointments is illegal and unlawful.
4. When I consider the afore submissions it is lucculent that the petitioner's specific case is that the Manager of the School is not now obligated to appoint any protected teacher, in view of the aforementioned circulars, particularly Ext.P15 and Ext.P16. His adjunct contention, as recorded above, is that after 01.10.2011, which is the date on which the G.O. (P)No.199/11/G.Edn had been issued, the Managers of the Aided Schools cannot be forced to appoint protected teachers, eventhough they had executed bond in terms of the earlier G.O. (P)No.10/10/G.Edn dated 12.01.2010. WP(C).No.19846 OF 2014(E) 6
5. That said, however, the documents available on record, particularly the impugned order, makes it indubitable that it has been issued without adverting to any of the aforementioned circulars and without taking into account the petitioner's contention as recorded above.
6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the petitioner's claim needs to be reconsidered by the Government, for which purpose, Ext.P14 will require to be set aside.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P14; with a consequential direction to the competent Secretary of the Government to rehear the petitioner and the Manager of the school - either physically or through video conferencing and issue fresh orders on the claims made by the petitioner with respect to his approval of appointments, adverting to the various Government Orders and Circulars mentioned above, as expeditiously, as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
I make it clear that since I have not considered any of the rival contentions of the parties, they are all left open to be WP(C).No.19846 OF 2014(E) 7 pursued, while the afore exercise is completed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE dlk/27.01.2021 WP(C).No.19846 OF 2014(E) 8 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.) NO.1216/11/G.EDN. DATED 26.3.2011 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1.6.2011.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C-
1776/11/L.DIS.DATED 2.9.2011 OF THE 5TH RSPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6-8309/2011 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 7.12.2011. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1.10.2011.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/12/12/K. DIS.DATED 11.4.2012 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 4.6.2012.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/1099/12/K.DIS.DATED 1.9.2012 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8(a) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.) NO.5100/2012/G.EDN. DATED 25.10.2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PTITION FILED BEFORE TH 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.11.2012.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.29218 OF 2012-B DATED 7.12.2012.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATD 13.03.2013.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 7.5.2013.
WP(C).No.19846 OF 2014(E) 9 EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.21088/2013-I DATED 26.8.2013.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.) NO.1280/2014/G.EDN.DATED 12.03.2014 OF THE GOVERNMENT.