Kerala High Court
Ranjith K R vs Manager on 1 February, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/18TH SRAVANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 25653 of 2015 (F)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
------------------------
RANJITH K R
S/O.RAJAN K K, KARGIL HOUSE, P.O.KURALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT
BY ADV.SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. MANAGER, CNN BOYS HIGH SCHOOL ,
CHERPU, P O CHERPU, THRISSUR 680561
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
THRISSUR 680002
R1 BY ADV.SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
R1 BY ADV.SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
R2-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.BEENA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 25653 of 2015 (F)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2009-10
EXT.P1(A):-TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2011-12
EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD 1/6/2010
EXT.P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE MANAGER BEFORE
THE DPI DTD 27/11/2010
EXT. P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF
TECHNICAL EDUCATION DTD.22.2.2012
EXT.P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 3RD RSPONDENT DTD
20/4/2013
EXT.P6:-TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE IST RESPONDENT DTD
18/5/2013
EXT.P7:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DPI DTD
6/11/2013
EXT.P8:-TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF THE MANAGER DTD
28/12/2013
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
EXT.R3(A): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TECHNICAL EXAMINATION
(LOWER) IN GEOMETRICAL DRAWING ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU.
EXT.R3(B): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TECHNICAL EXAMINATION
(LOWER) IN DESIGN ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT
EXAMINATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU.
EXT.R3(C): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TECHNICAL EXAMINATION
(LOWER) IN PAINTING ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT
EXAMINATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU.
EXT.R3(D): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TECHNICAL EXAMINATION
(LOWER) IN FREEHAND OUTLINE AND MODEL DRAWING ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL
NADU.
EXT.R3(E): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TECHNICAL EXAMINATION
(HIGHER) IN FREEHAND OUTLINE AND MODEL DRAWING ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL
NADU.
W.P.(C).NO.25653/2015
EXT.R3(F): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TECHNICAL EXAMINATION
(HIGHER) IN PAINTING (OIL COLOUR) ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU.
EXT.R3(G): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TECHNICAL EXAMINATION
(HIGHER) IN DESIGN - INTERIOR DECORATION ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU.
EXT.R3(H): COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.C-84/2010 DATED 1.2.2010.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.25653 OF 2015 (F)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of August, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, while working as a Full Time Menial, was appointed as a Drawing teacher in CNN Boys High School, Cherpu. The appointment was not approved by the District Educational Officer [DEO], and in the first appeal preferred by the Manager, the Deputy Director also confirmed the order of the DEO. In a further appeal preferred under Rule 8A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules [KER], the Director of Public Instructions [DPI], by Ext.P7 order, after taking note of the letter dated 22.2.2012 of the Director of Technical Education, found that the objection against the petitioner, that the MGTE qualification in Drawing, which was obtained by the petitioner, could not be considered as equivalent to KGTE in Drawing, could not be legally sustained, and hence, directed the DEO to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Drawing teacher, in the School, with effect from 1.2.2010, if the appointment was otherwise in order. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that notwithstanding the specific directions in Ext.P7 order, the DEO has not complied with the said direction and passed orders approving the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 1.2.2010. W.P.(C).No.25653/2015 2
2. In a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent DEO, it is stated that, on a perusal of the certificates produced by the petitioner, it was not revealed that the petitioner had passed the MGTE qualification. It was felt, therefore, that it had to be ascertained whether the petitioner is having the required qualification specified in Rule 3(A) of Chapter XXXI KER, and in order to clear doubts, the said respondent had approached the DPI requesting to give necessary clarification to take further action in accordance with Ext.P7 order. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, it is further stated by the DEO that the doubt that exists in the mind of the DEO is whether the petitioner has obtained MGTE qualification which is considered to be equivalent as KGTE in Drawing.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Manager as also the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that the sole reason that weighed with the respondents to deny the approval to the appointment of the petitioner was the doubt as to whether the MGTE W.P.(C).No.25653/2015 3 qualification obtained by him could be seen as equivalent to the KGTE qualification. In Ext.P7 order passed by the DPI, the said authority found that the MGTE qualification in Drawing can be considered as equivalent to KGTE in Drawing. It is also found that the petitioner was a Rule 43A claimant. Under the said circumstances, and in the absence of any further proceedings against Ext.P7 order that was passed in 2013, I am of the view that it would be incumbent upon the DEO to issue formal orders approving the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 1.2.2010 as directed by the DPI. Accordingly, I dispose this writ petition directing the 3rd respondent to pass orders approving the appointment of the petitioner as a Drawing teacher in the School, with effect from 1.2.2010, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also be disbursed with the salary and other allowances that flow from the approval within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp/9/8/16