Back
2001 Supreme(Ker) 135
Judges : S.SANKARASUBBAN,A.LEKSHMIKUTTY
Sasikala - Appellant
Versus
Vrindha - Respondent
Case No : W.A. No. 32 of 2000 & connected cases
Decided On : 03/16/2001
Advocates Appeared :
K.P. Kylasanatha Pillai, P. Sreekumar & B. Prabhat Kumar For Appellant S. Mohandas, Pirappancode V.S. Sudhir & Government Pleader (Jose Thettayil) For Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of R.51A of Chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules and the applicability of estoppel in challenging temporary appointments.
Headnote:
Appointment - Panchayat School - Kerala Panchayat (Spread of Education) Rules, Kerala Education Rules - R.51A of Chapter XIV(A) - G.O. (MS) No. 218/95-LAD dated 6.10.1995 - Temporary Appointments - Permanent Vacancies - Preference for Future Appointments - Interpretation of Rules - Estoppel - Selection through Public Service Commission - Appointments Policy
Fact of the Case:
The case involved appeals against judgments in two original petitions concerning the termination of appointments of teachers in Panchayat-managed schools. The appointments were made temporarily based on G.O. (MS) No. 218/95-LAD dated 6.10.1995, despite the vacancies being permanent. The petitioners sought directions for re-appointment and other reliefs.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of R.51A of Chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules, as the vacancies were permanent and the appointments were made temporarily. The court also found that the petitioners were estopped from challenging their temporary appointments and that the temporary appointments made by the Panchayat would continue for the specified period.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of R.51A, the legality of the Government Order dated 6.10.1995, and the applicability of estoppel in challenging temporary appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted R.51A and held that it did not apply to the petitioners' appointments as the vacancies were permanent. The court also found that the petitioners were estopped from challenging their temporary appointments. Additionally, the court ruled that the Panchayat's temporary appointments would continue for the specified period.
Final Decision: The writ appeals were disposed of with the finding that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of R.51A, and the temporary appointments made by the Panchayat would continue for the specified period. The court also directed the Government to decide on the selection policy through the Public Service Commission within two months, failing which the Panchayat could make permanent appointments as per existing rules.
S. Sankarasubban, J.
W.A. Nos. 32 and 43 of 2000 are filed against the judgment in O.P. No. 26325 of 1999. W.A. No. 43 of 2000 is filed by the Secretary, Vamanapuram Grama Panchayat, while W.A. No. 32 of 2000 is filed by one Sasikala, who filed the appeal after getting leave from this Court. W.A. No. 2789 of 2000 is filed against the judgment in O.P. No. 7419 of 2000.
2. As already stated W.A. Nos. 32 and 43 of 2000 arise out of O.P. No. 26325 of 1999. There, the petitioners are PS. Vrindha and Juli S. Nair. The first petitioner in the Original Petition was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant from 6.11.1996 to 31.3.1997 against a retirement vacancy of one Mary George in Anakudy U.P.S. under the management of the Vamanapuram Grama Panchayat. The second petitioner was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant from 8.11.1996 to 31.3.1997 against a retirement vacancy of one P. Radhamani Amma in the same school under the management of the Vamanapuram Grama Panchayat.
3. The above two appointments were approved by the Educational Authorities. According to the petitioners, they were selected for appointment by a duly constituted Selection Committee, which consisted of Deputy Director of Education and the District Panchayat Officer, Thiruvananthapuram. The vacancies to which the petitioners were appointed were permanent vacancies. Hence, they could have continued in the vacancies. But their services were terminated on 31.3.1997 by the Headmaster. This was based on G.O. (MS) No. 218/95-LAD dated 6.10.1995, copy of which is produced as Ext. P5 in the case. In Ext. P5, if is stated that 19 High Schools, 29 Upper Primary Schools, 63 Lower Primary Schools are functioning under the management of various Panchayats in Kerala. The appointments in the Panchayat Schools are based on the Kerala Panchayat (Spread of Education) Rules. The Panchayat is treated as the Educational Agency and the Secretary is treated as the Manager. Teachers are appointed after getting approval from the Employment Exchange. The Government has decided to entrust the selection of teachers to the Public Service Commission. But for implementing this, the Kerala Education Rules and the Kerala Panchayat (Spread of Education) Rules have to be amended. Since it will take some time to make the appointments, directions have been issued to make temporary appointments. It is stated in the order that till amendments are made, the appointments will be made from the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The Deputy Director and the District Panchayat Officer will be the members of that Committee. The appointments will be purely on temporary basis. It is made clear that the Rules regarding temporary appointment in private management is not applicable. It is on the basis of Ext. P5 that the appointments were made temporarily, even though the posts were permanent. The prayers made in the Original Petition are for a direction to the respondents calling for the records leading to Exts. P3, P4, P5, P8 and P10 and to quash the same and to issue a direction to the third respondent to re-appoint the petitioners as Upper Primary School Assistant in Anakudy U.P.S. and for other reliefs.
4. W.A. No. 2789 of 2000 is filed against the judgment in O.P. No. 7419 of 2000. There are seven petitioners in the Original Petition. The prayers in the Original Petition are for an appropriate writ or direction quashing the Government Order dated 6.10.1995, copy of which is produced as Ext. P2 and for a declaration that the petitioners having been appointed in permanent sanctioned posts, are entitled to continue to work as HSAs in their retrospective Schools beyond 31.3.2000 and to get approval thereof in unbroken continuity of the approval already granted to them as per Exts. P5 to Pll and to declare that they are entitled to all service benefits and for other reliefs.
5. O.P. No. 26325 of 1999 was disposed of by Rajan, J. The question actually argued before the learned Single Judg
