Supreme Court of India
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
State of Kerala & Others – Appellants
Versus
Sneha Cheriyan & Another – Appellants
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1643 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.22332 of 2009 WITH C.A.NO. 1644 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) No.22260 of 2009 C.A.NO. 1645 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) No.22326 of 2009 C.A.NO.1646 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) No.22558 of 2009 C. A. NO.1647 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) No.22674 of 2009 C.A.NO.1648 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) No.22742 of 2009
Decided On : 22-02-2013
Rule 51A ,Chapter XIV A Kerala Education Rules, 1959 - Claim for appointment – Promotion - Management and teachers it generally known started misusing above statutory provisions for getting preference for future appointments by effecting appointments by creating vacancies during academic year - Such unethical and unhealthy practices led creation of anticipatory vacancies and multiple claimants Rule causing drain on State exchequer since the State is paying salary - Government in order to check such practices issued an order stating that claim for re-appointment Rule KER would be limited to those who had been appointed against regular/ leave vacancies having duration not less than one academic year - Further was also stated that vacancies having duration of less than one academic year would be filled up on daily wage basis and in order to give effect to that Government order – Held, Government in exercise of the powers conferred Section Kerala Education Act curb the unhealthy practices adopted by certain managers of aided schools by creating short-term vacancies or appointing several persons in a relatively long leave vacancies itself thereby making several claimants against one and same vacancy object and purpose of above-mentioned notification also to end practice of creation of multiple claimants in anticipatory vacancies creating more claimants imposing huge financial commitment to Government Court are inclined adopt such construction since stand of respondents is that Rule speaks of duration of vacancies” and not duration of appointment expression “vacancy” used in sub-rule Rule has to be read along with expression “academic year” so as to achieve object and purpose of the amended sub-rule Rule so as to remedy mischief - Evil which was sought be remedied was the one resulting from vide spread unethical and unhealthy practices followed by certain aided school managers in creating short term vacancies during the academic year - Court are adopting such course not because there is an ambiguity in statutory provision but to reaffirm object and purpose of sub-rule to Rule read with proviso to Section and the Government Order - Approval can also be granted to appointments made to the approved vacancies arising and continuing beyond March due to sanctioning of additional divisions - Manager can make appointments in school even if duration of which is less than one academic year but on daily wages basis and if duration of vacancy exceeds one academic year that can be filled up on scale of pay basis – Appeal allowed
Judgment :-
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
Delay condoned.
1. Leave granted.
2. We are in these cases called upon to decide whether a minimum continuous service in an academic year is a pre-requisite for raising a claim for re-appointment under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (for short ‘ the KER’) in view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 7A of the same chapter of the KER.
3. In the State of Kerala, the power for appointment of teachers in aided schools is conferred on Managers of such schools under Section 11 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’) while the salary and other benefits are to be borne by the State Government under Section 9 of the Act. Qualified teachers who are so appointed when relieved as per Rule 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies as per Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of the KER. Therefore, when vacancy arises, the Manager is bound to comply with the procedure under Rule 51A and cannot deny that statutory claim. When once a valid appointment is given to the teachers and such appointments are approved ipso facto they become entitled to the benefits under Rule 51A.
4. The Management and the teachers, it is generally known, started misusing the above statutory provisions for getting preference for future appointments by effecting appointments by creating vacancies during the academic year. Such unethical and unhealthy practices led to creation of anticipatory vacancies and multiple claimants under Rule 51A causing drain on State exchequer since the State is paying the salary. The Government in order to check such practices issued an order G.O.(P) No.169/04.G.Edn. dated 15.06.2004 stating that the claim for re-appointment under Rule 51A of the KER would be limited to those who had been appointed against regular/ leave vacancies having a duration of not less than one academic year. Further, it was also stated that vacancies having duration of less than one academic year would be filled up on daily wage basis and in order to give effect to that Government order, it was ordered that necessary amendments would be made to sub-rule (3) of Rule 7A, Chapter XIV A of the KER.
5. The Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 36 of the Act amended the KER vide its notification dated G.O.(P) No. 121/2005/G. Edn. Dated 16.04.2005.
Unamended sub-rule (3) of Rule 7A reads as follows:
“Vacancies the duration of which is two months or less shall not be filled up any appointment”
Amended sub-rule (3) of Rule 7A reads as follows:
“Vacancies the duration of which is less than one academic year shall not be filled up.”
The explanatory note to the above-mentioned Rules reads as follows:
“(This does not form part of the notification but is intended to indicate the general purpose).
Under the existing sub-rule (3) of Rule 7A Chapter XIV A, General Education Rules vacancies the duration of which is two months or less shall not be filled up by any appointment. Managements of aided schools are appointing teachers in short leave vacancies the duration of which is more than two months and it results in huge financial commitment to Government. After detailed examination of the matter Government inter alia issued order as per G.O.(P) 169/2004/G. Edn dated 15.06.2004 to the effect that claim for appointment under rule 51A of the Kerala Education Rule be limited to those who have been appointed against regular/leave vacancies having a duration of not less than one academic year. The Government has now decided to give statutory validity to the above Government order.
The notification is intended to achieve the above object.”
6. The Government issued another clarificatory order G.O.(P) No. 31/06GE dated 19.01.2006 dealing with the appointment of teachers in short vacancies which is not of much relevance, but for completeness, the operative portion of the same is given below:
“In the above circumstances, Government are pleased to clarify
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.