Kerala High Court
V.A.Shihabudheen vs The State Of Kerala on 7 June, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 25TH MAGHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 32498 of 2015
PETITIONER(S):
V.A.SHIHABUDHEEN, AGED 30 YEARS,
SON OF ABOOBACKER, JUNIOR ARABIC TEACHER (FULL-TIME),
AIDED LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, IRINGAPURAM, CHAVAKKAD,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENT(S) :
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,
CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 506.
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 506.
5. THE MANAGER,
AIDED LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, IRINGAPURAM, CHAVAKKAD,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 103.
R1 TO R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.E.S.ASHRAF
R5 BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.ANISON
SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI
SMT.P.A.RINUSA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 14-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 32498 of 2015 (J)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER
DATED 7-6-2010 AND APPROVAL THEREON.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D/1804/11 OF THE ASSISTANT
EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 9-4-2012.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 04-06-2012 AND
APPROVAL THEREON.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D3432/12/L.DIS. DATED 11-10-2012
OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. F2/14723/2015/DPI/K.DIS.
DATED 27-05-2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE
THE GOVERNMENT DATED 27-05-2015.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO. 3873/15/G.EDN DATED 9-9-2015
OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2010-2011 OF
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D-4040/10/K.DIS DATED 10-05-2011
OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE KTET CERTIFICATE.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msd.
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No. 32498 of 2015
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
The prayers in this writ petition are for directions to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as LG (Arabic) teacher for the period from 7.6.2010 to 3.6.2012 on a regular basis. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's appointment as Arabic Teacher with effect from 4.6.2012 had been approved on regular basis. However, the petitioner had worked against a regular sanctioned post of Arabic Teacher from 7.6.2010. The appointment had been made in different spells only due to the existence of a management dispute and only the first appointment for the period from 7.6.2010 to 4.8.2010 has been approved and that too, on daily wages. It is submitted that after the rejection of the proposal for approval in different spells, the Manager had sent a revised proposal for approval of regular appointment of the petitioner from 7.6.2010 onwards on a scale of pay. However, without considering this aspect of the matter, the Government has passed Exhibit P7 order by which the claim WP(C).32498/15 2 raised by the petitioner for appointment on a regular basis from 7.6.2010 to 3.6.2012 has been rejected.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5 th respondent Manager contending that there was a regular vacancy available to accommodate the petitioner from 7.6.2010. It is submitted that the vacancy was filled up on daily wages by the then Manager, who was temporarily discharging the duties of the Manager. It is further submitted that a revised proposal has been sent up for approval of appointment of the petitioner on regular basis from 7.6.2010 onwards.
3. I have considered the contentions advanced. The reason stated in Exhibit P7 for not approving the appointment of the petitioner on a regular basis is that the appointments had been made on a short term basis alone and with break of a day and two in between the spells. However, from the pleadings placed on record in the instant case, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed against a regular retirement vacancy from 7.6.2010 onwards. From the fact that the petitioner's appointment had been approved on daily wages from 7.6.2010 to 4.8.2010, it is clear that the petitioner was fully qualified as well.
WP(C).32498/15 3
4. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that since there was a regular retirement vacancy available to accommodate the petitioner, the petitioner's appointment should have been approved on a regular basis from 7.6.2010 onwards. It is so declared. In case the Manager has sent up a revised proposal for approval of appointment from 7.6.2010 to 3.6.2012, the same shall be taken up by the 4 th respondent and orders passed thereon within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judmgent. In case the Manager has not sent the proposal, he shall sent up such proposal within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The monetary benefits due to the petitioner less the amounts paid shall also be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE vgs15/2