The central legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to preference under R.51A of Chapter XIVA of the Rules is contingent upon meeting the qualifications and conditions specified in the Rules and relevant government orders.

Headnote:
R.51A - Appointment of Teachers - Chapter XIVA of the Rules - Ext. P3 Government Order - Qualification of Teachers - Appointment Dispute
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the appointment of a Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in an aided school. The petitioner, the Manager of the school, appointed J. Saraswathi to the position, but the 5th respondent claimed preference under R.51A of Chapter XIVA of the Rules. The educational authorities declined the appointment of J. Saraswathi and directed the petitioner to appoint the 5th respondent based on Ext. P3 Government Order.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the 5th respondent was not entitled to the benefit of R.51A as she did not meet the qualifications and conditions specified in the Rules and the Ext. P3 Government Order. The court quashed the orders refusing the appointment of J. Saraswathi and directed the approval of her appointment as the Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in the school.
Issues: The main issue was whether the 5th respondent was entitled to preference under R.51A of Chapter XIVA of the Rules for the appointment as a Lower Grade Hindi Teacher.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted R.51A and examined the qualifications and conditions specified in the Rules and the Ext. P3 Government Order. It concluded that the 5th respondent did not meet the criteria for preference under R.51A and therefore directed the approval of the appointment of J. Saraswathi.
Final Decision: O.P. No. 7504 of 1993 was allowed, and the orders refusing the appointment of J. Saraswathi were quashed. The appointment of J. Saraswathi as the Lower Grade Hindi Teacher was directed to be approved, and O.P. No. 8535 of 1993 was also allowed with the quashing of certain orders.

Judgment :-

P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.

As the issues involved in the Original Petitions are inter-linked, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. The parties and exhibits referred to in the judgment are in the order in which they are referred to in O.P. No. 7504 of 1993 unless otherwise stated.

2. The petitioner is the Manager of an aided school, M. U. U.P. School Arattupuzha. The 5th respondent was appointed as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in the school with effect from 25.7.1977 for a period of three months. She passed S.S.L.C. Examination and Vidwan Examination in Hindi from the Hindi Prachara Sabha, Hyderabad. The Vidwan Examination in Hindi from the Hindi Prachara Sabha was not treated as an equivalent qualification under Chapter XXXI of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules') for appointment as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in Upper Primary Schools and hence her appointment was not approved by the first respondent - Assistant Educational Officer, Ambalappuzha. She also absented herself from School from 7.10.1977 and proceedings are initiated against her by the Manager for her unauthorised absence. The 5th respondent as per Ext. P1 letter dated 27.10.1977 requested the petitioner to drop the proceedings against her. It is also stated in Ext. P1 that she has reliquished all her claims to the said post.

3. Later, the first respondent as per Ext. P2 approved the appointment of the 5th respondent from 25.7.1977 to 7.10.1977 as an under-qualified full time Hindi teacher in the light of the Government Order G.O. No. 5361/78/G. Edn. dated 24.11.1978, copy of which is provided as Ext. P2 in O.P. No. 9049 of 1993.

4. The manager thereafter appointed one Vilasini Amma as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher with effect from 25.10.1977 till 31.3.1978 which was approved by the first respondent. Later, she left the service and joined another school.

5 Another vacancy of Lower Grade Hindi Teacher arose in the school from 25.10.1985 in which one J. Saraswathi who is the petitioner in O.P. No. 8535 of 1993 was appointed. Her appointment for the period from 25.10.1985 to 31.3.1986 was approved as per Ext. P6 Government order G.O. Rt. 580/89 G.Edn. dated 22.2.1989 (Ext. P3 in O.P. No. 8535 of 1993) and she was paid the minimum salary payable to a Lower Grade Hindi Teacher pursuant to the order of this Court in C.M.P. No. 15198 of 1993 in O.P. No. 8535 of 1993. The 5th respondent staked her claim for the post taking shelter under R.51A of Chapter XIVA of the Rules when J. Saraswathi was appointed to the vacancy on 25.10.1985. But the Manager rejected her claim as she did not possess the requisite qualification to be appointed as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher and also on the ground that she had relinquished her claim as per Ext. P1. In the light of the claim raised by the 5th respondent, the first respondent did not approve the appointment of Saraswathi petitioner in O.P. No. 8535 of 1993. Against the order of refusal of approval, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Educational Officer/ 2nd respondent, but in vain. Thereafter he filed revision before the Director or Public Instructions/ third respondent who also declined the request for approval of the appointment of J. Saraswathi and directed the petitioner to appoint the 5th respondent in the light of Ext. P4 communication of the Government addressed to the 5th respondent. Ext. P4 though challenged by the petitioner before the Government under R.92 of Chapter XIVA of the Rules, the same was dismissed as per Ext. P7. The petitioner then preferred an application for review of Ext. P7 which was dismissed as per Ext. P10. Hence the petitioner prays for quashing Exts. P7 and P10 orders. He also prays for a declaration that the 5th respondent is not qualified to hold the post of Lower Grade Hindi Teacher and hence not eligible to get preference in appointment under R.51A of Chapter XIVA of the Rules for appointment to the post of Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in the sc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document