Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11.We have already taken note of the fact that the core contention of the petitioners is that the Tribunal went palpably wrong in setting aside Annexure-A2 seniority list even in the absence of any such prayer in any of the  O.P.(KAT).51/2016 & conn. 22 original applications. It is also evident from the impugned orders that after setting aside the seniority list, the Tribunal issued a direction to the third respondent, the Director of Higher Secondary Education to prepare a fresh seniority list of HSST in accordance with the principles enunciated in the common order. A scanning of the impugned order would reveal that after considering the rival contentions and the manner in which the Directorate prepared Annexure- A2 seniority list, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that persons reaching the post of HSST from different categories such as HSA, UPSA/ LPSA, by virtue of the recruitment rules, will lose their birth marks and therefore, for the purpose of preparing the common integrated seniority list of HSST, the provisions under Rule 27(a) of Part II, KS & SSR alone need be followed. It is based on such conclusion that the Tribunal issued further directions for preparation of a fresh seniority list. The Tribunal further held that though the common category of  O.P.(KAT).51/2016 & conn. 23 HSST consists of by transfer appointees from HSST (Junior), HSAs and UPSA/LPSA, in almost all subjects such preferences are made only for the purpose of filling up the vacancies in the post of HSST in the concerned subject and in the absence of provisions under the Special Rules for fixation of seniority in the cadre of HSST, general rules under the KS & SSR alone would apply. It was held further thus:-

(iii) Must have passed the State Eligibility Test for the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher conducted by Government of Kerala or by the agency authorised by the State Government.

17. Thus, a scanning of the relevant rules governing the method of appointment as also prescription of  O.P.(KAT).51/2016 & conn. 31 qualifications for the post of HSST would reveal that the normal method of appointment to post of HSST shall be by transfer appointment from HSST (Junior) in the subject concerned belonging to the Kerala Higher Secondary Education Subordinate Service, viz., item No.I possessing the prescribed qualifications. Only in the absence of sufficient number of teachers in item No.I in the subject concerned, vacancies will be available for appointments under item No.II and in such eventuality, such vacancies shall be apportioned in the ratio 1:3 between appointment by transfer and direct recruitment. It would also reveal that in the absence of qualified persons in the category of HSA, by transfer appointment shall be effected from qualified UPSA/LPSAs possessing the prescribed qualifications. Evidently, the Government made classifications, based on Rule 5(2) of the Rules that prescribe the qualifications for the post, such as HSA Type I, HSA Type II, HSA Type III, UPSA/LPSA Type I,  O.P.(KAT).51/2016 & conn. 32 UPSA/LPSA Type II and UPSA/LPSA Type III. In respect of all such categories, possession of Master's Degree in the concerned subject with not less than 50% marks from any of the Universities in Kerala or qualification recognised as equivalent thereto in the respective subject by any University in Kerala as mentioned in Rule 5(2)(i) is obligatory. Among the HSAs, those persons having B.Ed Degree also in the concerned subject would be the first preferential category, namely HSA Type I and in their absence HSA described as type II viz., HSA possessing the qualification under Rule 5(2)(ii)(1) and B.Ed Degree in the concerned faculty as specified in the Act and Statutes of any of the Universities in the Kerala would be appointed. In the absence of HSA Type II, the third category which was described by the third respondent as type III would get a chance for appointment. They are persons belonging to the cadre of HSA having the qualification under Rule 5 (2)(ii)(1) and B.Ed Degree in any subject acquired after a  O.P.(KAT).51/2016 & conn. 33 regular course of study from any of the universities in Kerala or a qualification recognized as equivalent thereto by any of the universities in Kerala. It is to be noted that in the absence of sufficient persons belonging to the categories of HSA, in the order of preference to fill up the vacancies available under the quota for by transfer appointments, by transfer appointments shall be effected from qualified persons from the categories of UPSA/LPSA. It is to be noted that on the same pattern followed in the case of HSAs, based on the qualifications prescribed under 5(2)(ii)(2) and 3 of the Rules, the third respondent had identified three types; viz., type I, type II, and type III even in the cadre of UPSA/LPSA. While filling up of the vacancies set apart for by transfer appointment, the preference provided under the relevant rules, as mentioned hereinbefore, had truly reflected in the concerned orders of appointment. This factual position is not at all in dispute. While the petitioners contend that it  O.P.(KAT).51/2016 & conn. 34 has to be reflected in the integrated seniority list, the party respondents, who were the applicants before the Tribunal, strongly resisted the said contention and submitted that the rules regarding recruitment that provide the order of preference matters only for effecting appointments and in the absence of provisions in the Special Rules for determining seniority for preparing the integrated seniority list, the mandates under Rule 27(a) Part II, KS & SSR are to be followed.

20. In view of the question posed for consideration, it is profitable to refer to Rule 27(b) of Part II, KS & SSR and it reads thus:-

27(b).The appointing authority shall, at the time of passing an order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a service, fix the order of preference among them; and seniority shall be  O.P.(KAT).51/2016 & conn. 37 determined in accordance with it:

21. A perusal of Rule 27(b) provides that in case the appointing authority at the time of passing an order appointing two more more persons simultaneously to a service fix the order of preference among them in the said order and their seniority shall be determined in accordance with the said order. When that be the position, going by the provisions of Rule 27(b) and going by the characteristics of the order of appointment, the provisions under Rule 27(a) cannot be made applicable to fix the inter se seniority for the purpose of preparing integrated seniority list and what should be applied for that purpose is Rule 27(b) of Part II, KS & SSR. In the case on hand, we are concerned only with the fixation of inter se seniority between the appointees belonging to HSA and UPSA/LPSA.

(a) of Part II, KS & SSR in circumstances like the one on hand, would result in granting of seniority to an appointee who would not have even considered and appointed as HSST if sufficient number of qualified hands were available in the other priority category. If qualified hands were available, at the relevant point of time, in the category of HSST (Junior) a qualified hand in the category of HSA, even if he is older than such HSSTs, would not have been considered and appointed as HSST. So also, if sufficient number of qualified HSAs were available, at the relevant point of time, a qualified UPSA/LPSA would not have been considered and appointed as HSST, even if he is  O.P.(KAT).51/2016 & conn. 41 senior to qualified HSSTs or qualified HSAs. In such circumstances, if appointments were effected considering the availability of qualified hands in the priority categories and in order of appointments the appointees were arranged in the order of preference of categories, going by the Special Rules, in terms of Rule 27(b) of Part II, KS & SSR such order has to continue while fixing their inter se seniority in the integrated seniority list, as well. True that even in such circumstances, if at a particular point of time, qualified HSST (Juniors) were not available or sufficient number of HSST (Juniors) were not available and owing to that fact if HSAs or UPSAs/LPSAs, in the order of preference, were given appointments they shall not be placed juniors to HSST (Juniors) or HSAs, as the case may be, appointed as HSSTs at a later point of time. Obviously, HSST (Junior) carries higher scale of pay than HSA. That apart, going by the Special Rules, only the absence of qualified HSST (Junior), qualified hands in HSA, in the  O.P.(KAT).51/2016 & conn. 42 order of preference, seek for consideration and appointment and only if further vacancies are available, qualified hands in UPSA/LPSA category could be considered in the matter of appointment. All these factual and legal positions constrain us to conclude that the integrated seniority has to be prepared taking into account Rule 27(b) and not Rule 27(a) of Part II, KS & SSR. When appointments of HSSTs were effected in different subjects on the same day, it would result in a situation wherein the persons appointed under different orders would hold the same serial numbers in their respective orders of appointment. For example if on a particular day, the Director issued order of appointments of HSST (Malayalam) and on the same day issued orders of appointments of HSST (English), certainly there must be persons holding serial number 1 and so on and so forth in both the orders. It would definitely create a situation if they reached the post of HSST from the same category i.e.,  O.P.(KAT).51/2016 & conn. 43 either from HSA or UPSA/LPSA. Necessarily in such circumstances, after initially deciding the inter se seniority of persons appointed under different orders based on Rule 27(b), a further fixation of inter se seniority would also be required. But at that point of time, Rule 27(b) cannot be directly applied and in such circumstances, evidently, one will have to look into the proviso under the Notes to Rule 27(a). If persons from different categories were appointed on different dates, there would not be much difficulty in fixing the seniority. But, if persons belonging to HSA category, but in different subjects, got appointment by transfer to the post of HSST, on the same day under different orders, their seniority is necessarily to be fixed by looking into all the aforesaid provisions of law, as well. True that while fixing seniority list of HSST for the purpose of preparing integrated seniority list, the fact that one was appointed in a particular subject and another was appointed in a different subject would not be having any  O.P.(KAT).51/2016 & conn. 44 relevance at all. Therefore, in such circumstances, it could be made with reference to age, necessarily, the older must be given the seniority. In a case where persons who are to be assigned seniority as above, are of the same age, it has to be fixed on the basis of the alphabetic order of their names. If both those aspects are also the same, then it has to be decided on the basis of the alphabetical order of the District concerned. At this juncture, the learned State Attorney submitted that in fact, Annexure-A2 list was prepared following the principles enunciated by us as above. But at the same time, it is to be noted that the said seniority list in full was not made available as part of the materials on record. In such circumstances, we are not in a position to consider the verity or otherwise of the said submission regarding the fixation of seniority in the list dated 26.5.2014. We are of the view that when the list in full was not produced before the Tribunal and there was absolutely no direct challenge against the seniority list, the  O.P.(KAT).51/2016 & conn. 45 Tribunal went wrong in setting aside Annexure-A2 extract of seniority list dated 26.5.2014, in its entirity. We are, however, inclined to modify the order of the Tribunal carrying directions to the third respondent, the Director of Higher Secondary Education to prepare a fresh seniority list as one, for preparing an integrated seniority list of HSSTs if the list which was already prepared is not actually one, prepared strictly in conformity with the principles enunciated hereinbefore. In such eventuality, the Director of Higher Secondary Education shall prepare a fresh integrated seniority list of HSST in accordance with the provisions and strictly adhering to the principles laid hereinbefore. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the applicants/party respondents in the original petitions submitted that there is a chance of HSST in a particular subject may get a slot on a day on which a vacancy in that concerned subject had not actually fallen vacant. But at the same time, it is to be noted that we have issued the  O.P.(KAT).51/2016 & conn. 46 aforementioned orders taking into account the fact that the Director had already issued orders of appointment reflecting the order of preference of different categories by virtue of the Special Rules, in such orders. In such circumstances, it cannot now be presumed that the Director had issued the orders of appointment even when vacancies were not actually existing and it can only be presumed that such orders of appointments were issued as against the existing vacancies. Since we had no opportunity to peruse the full text of the actual integrated final seniority list (we have already mentioned that such list was not available on record), we are not in a position to hold that such a list was already prepared strictly in accordance with the principles enunciated by us. Certainly, that is a matter now to be looked into by the official respondents, that is to say whether what was already prepared is an integrated seniority of HSST prepared in conformity with the principles laid down  O.P.(KAT).51/2016 & conn. 47 hereinbefore. If no such list was prepared, the official respondents are bound to prepare such an integrated final seniority list. Even if already such a list was prepared, but at the same time, if while working out the inter se seniority in terms of the principles laid down hereinbefore, any mistake had been crept in, it will be open to the persons concerned to bring it to the notice of the Director of Higher Secondary Education by filing proper representations within a reasonable time. To enable persons feel aggrieved to file such representations, the third respondent/Director shall invite objection on such matters within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and objections, if any, shall be submitted within one month thereafter. We also make it clear that in case an integrated seniority list is found to have been prepared already in consonance with the principles laid down herein, it will be open to the official respondents to operate the same for the purpose of  O.P.(KAT).51/2016 & conn. 48 effecting further promotions, subject to any correction, if required, based on any representation received based on the liberty granted as per this judgment. The common order of the Tribunal in the original applications and the order in the review applications in so far as they go against the principles laid hereinbefore stand vacated and set aside. The original petitions will stand disposed of as above. Promotions, if any, already effected will be subject to the examination of the aforesaid aspects by the Director as directed in this judgment and the outcome of representations, if any, filed based on this judgment.