R.51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules requires an identity of posts for preference in re-appointment, meaning that the nature of the post to which re-appointment is sought must be the same as that from which the services of the teacher were terminated earlier. The rule also needs to be interpreted in a manner consistent and harmonious with other provisions in the Chapter, particularly rules 43 and 52, and taking into account the constraints in the appointment of teachers such as subject requirements and language requirements.

Headnote:
R.51A - Construction of R.51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules - Summary of Acts and Sections: R.51A provides a rule of preference for appointments to future vacancies for qualified teachers who had been relieved from service as per Rr. 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies. The court held that R.51A requires an identity of posts, meaning that the nature of the post to which re-appointment is sought must be the same as that from which the services of the teacher were terminated earlier. The court also emphasized the need for consistency and harmony with other provisions in the Chapter, particularly rules 43 and 52, and highlighted the constraints in the appointment of teachers such as subject requirements and language requirements. The court concluded that R.51A does not apply to any and every vacancy that may arise in the school, and that the rule requires an identity of posts for preference in re-appointment. The court expressed agreement with the decisions in Gopalakrishnan Nair v. District Educational Officer, 1988 (1) KLT 644 and Sreekumari Amma v. State of Kerala, 1988(2) KLT 359.
Fact of the Case:

The appeals involved a common question of construction of R.51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. The appellants in the three cases sought preference in appointment to certain teaching posts based on their previous service, but their claims were rejected on the ground that the posts to which they aspired to be appointed were different from those from which they had been 'thrown out' earlier.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that R.51A requires an identity of posts, meaning that the nature of the post to which re-appointment is sought must be the same as that from which the services of the teacher were terminated earlier. The court also emphasized the need for consistency and harmony with other provisions in the Chapter, particularly rules 43 and 52, and highlighted the constraints in the appointment of teachers such as subject requirements and language requirements. The court concluded that R.51A does not apply to any and every vacancy that may arise in the school, and that the rule requires an identity of posts for preference in re-appointment. The court expressed agreement with the decisions in Gopalakrishnan Nair v. District Educational Officer, 1988 (1) KLT 644 and Sreekumari Amma v. State of Kerala, 1988(2) KLT 359.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants were entitled to preference in appointment to certain teaching posts under R.51A of the Kerala Education Rules based on their previous service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that R.51A requires an identity of posts, meaning that the nature of the post to which re-appointment is sought must be the same as that from which the services of the teacher were terminated earlier. The court also emphasized the need for consistency and harmony with other provisions in the Chapter, particularly rules 43 and 52, and highlighted the constraints in the appointment of teachers such as subject requirements and language requirements. The court concluded that R.51A does not apply to any and every vacancy that may arise in the school, and that the rule requires an identity of posts for preference in re-appointment. The court expressed agreement with the decisions in Gopalakrishnan Nair v. District Educational Officer, 1988 (1) KLT 644 and Sreekumari Amma v. State of Kerala, 1988(2) KLT 359.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Appeals, stating that the appellants were not entitled to any relief.

Judgment :-

Viswanatha Iyer, J.

These three appeals involve a common question of construction of R.51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules (the Rules, for brevity). This rule had been the subject of consideration in two decisions of this court in Gopalakrishnan Nair v. District Educational Officer, 1988 (1) KLT 644 and Sreekumari Amma v. State of Kerala, 1988 (2) KLT 359, both by the same Division Bench. Appellants however contend that these decisions require reconsideration as, according to them, all aspects relating to the rule have not been considered in those decisions, and also because the Bench had not taken note of an unreported judgment in Writ Appeal Nos. 160 and 197 of 1972, which is stated to tale a contrary view.

2. We shall briefly state the facts in the three cases. W.ANo.64j6 of 1991:

The appellant was appointed as a lower grade Hindi teacher in the Upper Primary section of the school, of which the fourth respondent is the Manager, in a leave vacancy from 10-11-1976 to 14-1-1977. The appointment was approved. She is fully qualified for the post of High School Assistant (Hindi) (H.S.A. for short). In the year 1989-90 one post of H.S.A fell vacant when the incumbent one Sosamma entered on leave. The fourth respondent advertised the vacancy as if it were to be filled upby outside hands. The appellant staked her claim for the post by the letter Ext. P1 dated 16-8-1989 sent to the Manager, by virtue of her service in 1976-77. Nevertheless the fifth respondent was appointed. Appellant made a representation Ext.P2 before the District Educational Officer who rejected it by the proceedings Exl.P3. Appeal to the second respondent Deputy Director of Education was however successful, the latter holding by the proceedings Ext. PS that the appellant was the rightful claimant for the post by virtue of R. S1A. The fifth respondent, filed revision petition before Government, who allowed the revision petition by the proceedings Ext. PS dated 30-1-1991. In passing this order, government stated that having regard to the law declared by this court in the two decisions, Gopalakrishnan Nair and Sreekutari Amrna, appellant cannot claim preference In appointment. The fifth respondent's appointment was accordingly approved.

3. This order was challenged in the original petition with the contention that the appellant was entitled to preference in appointment as H.S.A. (Hindi) by virtue of her having functioned as a lower grade Hindi teacher in the Upper Primary section of the school in 1976-77. The learned judge dismissed the petition following the decisions of the Division Bench, after holding that there was no identity between the posts of lower grade Hindi teacher occupied by the appellant in 1976-77 and the post of H.S.A. to which she aspired to be appointed now. The writ petitioner has therefore filed this appeal.

4- A2 no 1975 of 1991. is by the fourth respondent in the original petition. The appellant had worked as lower grade Hindi teacher for two short spells in the first respondent school in leave vacancies in 1983 and later. but both the appointments were not approved by the Department, Later he had two short stints of service as lower division Clerk in the same school, both of which were approved by the Department. Later and on 15-7-1988 two posts, one of lower division clerk and one of a Sower grade Hindi teacher were sanctioned for the school by the staff fixation for the year 1988-89. The first respondent appointed one Mini K. John, a fresh hand to the post of lower grade Hindi teacher. The post of Jower division clerk was not filled up. The appellant represented to the authorities claiming appointment to one of these posts in view of his past service in the school. The District Educational Officer gave a direction accordingly to the first respondent Manager to appoint the appellant either as lower grade Hindi teacher or as lower division clerk. Consequently the appellant was appointed as lower division clerk on 24-4-1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1991 Supreme(Ker) 357

Cases Referred (2)