Bindu P.T vs State Of Kerala on 22 January, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Bindu P.T vs State Of Kerala on 22 January, 2026

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.34070 of 2017 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellant is working as Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA) in the school of the 5th Respondent with effect from 01.06.2009. By Ext.P1 proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 17.08.2011, a post was sanctioned during the academic year 2009-10. By Ext.P2 order dated 03.07.2014 of the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad, she is deployed as cluster co-ordinator in the BRC under SSA. The appellant's appointment was approved only on 21-11-2012. The Manager has filed a revision petition before the Government seeking approval of the appointment of the appellant with effect from 15.07.2010 in the 1:40 ratio in the existing post, evident from Ext.P4 revision petition dated 12.03.2014 submitted by the Manager before the Government. By Ext.P5 letter dated 16.09.2015, the Government has rejected the revision petition 4 W.A.No.1755 of 2024 2026:KER:5218 without assigning any reasons. Ext.P6 Government Order dated 22.09.2010 in terms provides for retention of 1:40 ratio during the academic year 2010-11. Ext.P7 is the staff fixation orders of the year 2011-12 to 2015-16, which shows that there is a sanctioned post of UPSA in the school. Ext.P8 is the representation dated 23.02.2016 submitted by the appellant before the Government, which was forwarded to the 3rd respondent for taking action in terms of G.O.(P)29/2016, as evident from Ext.P9 letter dated 25.02.2016. That is pending before the 3rd respondent. By Ext.P10 proceedings dated 05.04.2017 of the 4th respondent, the appellant is retained in the parent school. Now the 3rd respondent has passed Ext.P11 order dated 22.09.2017 by which the request for approval from 15.07.2010 is turned down. Ext.P12 is the Government order dated 29.01.2016. With these pleadings, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.34070 of 2017 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

"i) To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Exts.P5, P9 and Ext.P11 and quash the same.

ii) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to 5 W.A.No.1755 of 2024 2026:KER:5218 approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 15.07.2010 to 31.03.2016 and to grant all service benefits within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

iii) To declare that the delay in approving the appointment will not take away the right to the petitioner to get approval of the appointment on the basis of the Government orders prevailing at the relevant academic years".

3. In the writ petition, the 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 27.03.2019 opposing the reliefs sought for. Paragraphs 5 to 7 of that counter affidavit read thus:

"5. It is submitted that as per the staff fixation order 2010- 11 three divisions were reduced, 2 posts in UP and 1 post in LP. This order was modified and one UPSA was retained in 1:40 ratio. The Manager has appointed the petitioner in an anticipated additional post for the year 2009-10. There were restrictions from the part of Government for creating new additional posts during 2009-10. As per the G.O No.10/10 dated 02.01.2010, the Government has lifted the ban on the approval of the appointment in additional post with the condition that the Manager has submitting a bond for the approval of appointment. Here the Manager submitting the bond on 16.06.2011 that is after the staff fixation order for the year 2010-11.

6. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner was appointed as cluster coordinator of BRC Shoranur as per order No.B3/16084/11 dated 03.07.2014 of Deputy Director of Education Palakkad. The petitioner was 6 W.A.No.1755 of 2024 2026:KER:5218 redeployed to the parent school, as per the order No. B3/16084/11 dated 31.05.2016 in the retirement vacancy of Smt. Kamar Laila who was retired from service on 31.05.2016. The Manager filed a Revision Petitioner before the 1st respondent. But the Government rejected the Revision petition because of the fact that implementing the 1:40 ratio cannot be applied retrospectively. The 1:40 PTR is applicable only when the teacher is thrown out from service due to the lack of students. In this scenario there were no surplus/retrenched teachers except Smt. Fayisa to be retained at the parent school applying 1:40 ratio. The petitioner was not a teacher who was thrown out from service by the staff fixation order 2010-11 and hence the appeal of the petitioner to retain herself at AUPS Irimbalassery applying 1:40 ratio is not sustainable.

7. It is further submitted that the petitioner was filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent in connection with the approval of the appointment. The 3rd respondent rejected the appeal by proceedings dated 22.09.2017. In this order the 3rd respondent stated that the post available in 2009- 10 was seized to exist on 14.07.2010 and no post was available from the Academic year 2010-11 and directed this office to revise the staff fixation order from 2011-12 to 2015-16 and there is no post to accommodate the petitioner. The petitioner was deployed to BRC as cluster co- ordinator. The staff fixation orders from 2011-12 to 2015- 16 was revised as per the direction from the 3rd respondent and there is no sanctioned post to accommodate the 7 W.A.No.1755 of 2024 2026:KER:5218 petitioner. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the 3 rd respondent with this matter. A hearing was conducted on 24.07.2017 and the appeal was rejected as per order No.KDls B3/23689/2016 dated 22.09.2017. In this order it is stated the post available for the academic year 2009-10 ceased to exist on 14.07.2010. Hence there is no post to accommodate the petitioner. The 3rd respondent directed this office to revise the staff fixation orders from 2011-12. The petitioner included ln the retrenched teacher list as per the order No. B3/16084/11 dated 03.07.2014 of Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad. The teachers were not in service from 14.07.2010 to 03.07.2014. Since the petitioner has no service from 15.07.2010 to 03.07.2014, the petitioner is not eligible or he is not deserving for the pay and other allowances for the above period".

4. To the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, the appellant filed a reply affidavit dated 23.07.2019.

5. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 04.09.2024 dismissed the writ petition. Paragraph 7 and the last paragraph of the judgment read thus:

"7. The challenge in this writ petition is as regards Exts.P5, P9 and P11. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was appointed as UPSA in the 5th respondent in an additional vacancy. It is also not in dispute that the said appointment 8 W.A.No.1755 of 2024 2026:KER:5218 in the additional vacancy was approved only subsequently in the year 2012. The petitioner claims the benefit of staff pattern of 1:40. It is true that Ext.P6 had made the said staff pattern applicable with respect to the year 2010-11. However, the fact remains that the petitioner's appointment was not approved in the year 2010. The petitioner's appointment from 01.06.2009 to 31.03.2010 was approved only on 21.11.2012, and the later approval was only for the period up to 14.07.2010, in the year 2014. In that view of the matter, there cannot any doubt that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of staff pattern pursuant to Ext.P6 which extended the ratio 1:40 for the year 2010-11 also. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.

Resultantly, this writ petition would stand dismissed".

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the present writ appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Counsel for the 5th respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the teacher-student ratio of 1:40 is as per the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, which came into force 9 W.A.No.1755 of 2024 2026:KER:5218 on 27.08.2019, and the respondents cannot deny the same to the appellant, especially when the provisions under the Kerala Education Rules regarding 1:45 were declared as void by this Court.

9. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the Manager has submitted the bond as per the G.O No.10/10 dated 02.01.2010, only on 16.06.2011, which is after the staff fixation order for the year 2010-2011. Due to this delay, the appointment of the appellant from 01.06.2009 to 31.03.2010 is approved only on 21.11.2012. The approval for the later period up to 14.07.2010 was only in the year 2014.

10. Admittedly, the appellant joined service in the school under the management of the 5th respondent as UPSA in an additional vacancy on 01.06.2009. The said appointment was approved on 14.07.2010. On the basis of staff fixation with respect to the academic year 2010- 11, the appellant was retrenched, and later she was appointed as a cluster coordinator pursuant to Ext.P2 order dated 03.07.2014 of the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad. She was redeployed to the very same school pursuant to Ext.P3 order dated 31.05.2016 of the 3rd 10 W.A.No.1755 of 2024 2026:KER:5218 respondent in a retirement vacancy. Her appointment for the initial period was approved only on 21.11.2012. The revision filed by the Manager before the 1st respondent seeking approval of the appointment of the appellant as UPSA on 15.07.2010 by applying the ratio 1:40 was rejected, stating the reason that her appointment for the subsequent period was approved only on 29.04.2014 and at that time the teacher-student ratio was 1:45. Therefore we find no illegality in the finding of the learned Single judge that the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of staff pattern pursuant to Ext.P6 Government Order dated 22.09.2010.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is perverse or illegal, which warrants the interference of this Court by exercising appellate jurisdiction.

In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

sks                                MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
                                     11
W.A.No.1755 of 2024                                     2026:KER:5218



                      APPENDIX OF WA NO. 1755 OF 2024

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R4(a)            A true copy of staff fixation order in the
                         year 2010-11
Exhibit R4(b)            A true copy of order No.KDis.C/304/2017 dated
                         29.12.2018
Exhibit R4(c)            A true copy of the G.O(Ms)No.7/2025/G.Edn
                         dated 09.01.2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1              A copy of the letter No.497933/J2/16/GEDN

dated 30.03.2016 from the Additional Chief Secretary to Director of Public Instructions Annexure A2 A copy of the Circular No. H2/25700/15/D.P.I dated 25.04.2016

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court