Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.
Fr. Somy Mathew, S/o. K.M. Mathew & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Department of General Education(T), Government Secretariat & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 9658 of 2021, W.P.(C) No. 9540 of 2021
Decided On : 23-09-2021
Kerala Education Rules - Rule 3 and 1(d) of Chapter XXXII - Post of Higher Secondary School Teacher – Scale of pay - Upgraded - Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. was working at Holy Cross Higher Secondary School and petitioner in W.P.(C) No. was working at the St. Mary’s Higher Secondary School, number of periods/workload for Higher Secondary School Teacher (Jr. Syriac) had exceeded 15 periods per week - Reliance is placed on staff fixation orders pertaining to St. Mary’s Higher Secondary School - It is contended that periods for Syriac in respective schools had clearly exceeded 15 periods per week - Whether said posts are to be upgraded to H.S.S.T. would depend on solitary - Whether workload had exceeded 15 hours per week
Finding of the court: Upgradation cannot be regarded as a matter of policy of the Government as the policy of the Government would end when posts are sanctioned by it. Furthermore, the spectre of the Government incurring additional financial commitment if upgradation is carried out cannot be a reason if the conditions as mandated in the statute are satisfied. Insofar as the case of the petitioners are concerned, the incurring of additional financial commitment has no relevance as the DGE has reported that the scale of pay for HSST (Jr.) Selection Grade is above the scale of pay for an HSST in Higher Secondary and there will be no financial burden to the Government if the posts are upgraded.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Two Higher Secondary School Teachers (Jr. Syriac) working in aided school managed by the 4th respondent Corporate Educational Agency have approached this Court, being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 2nd respondent in effecting upgradation of their post to Higher Secondary School Teachers (Syriac). According to the petitioners, as per the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules and the law laid down by this Court in State of Kerala and Ors. v. K.V. Sreejith and Ors. [2019 (2) KLT 253] interpreting the provisions, a Higher Secondary School Teacher (Jr.) has to be upgraded to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher once the workload exceeds 15 periods per week. Since identical issues are raised by teachers working under the same corporate management, these writ petitions are taken up and disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The petitioners contend that during the academic year 2012-2013, while the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9658/2021 was working at the Holy Cross Higher Secondary School, Cherupungal and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9540/2021 was working at the St. Mary’s Higher Secondary School, Bharananganam, the number of periods/workload for Higher Secondary School Teacher (Jr. Syriac) had exceeded 15 periods per week. Reliance is placed on the staff fixation orders pertaining to St. Mary’s Higher Secondary School, Bharananganam, (Exts.P2 to P4(a) in W.P.(C) No.9540/2021) and the staff fixation orders pertaining to Holy Cross HSS, Cherupunkal (Exts.P2 to P5(a) in W.P.(C) No.9658/2021) and it is contended that the periods for Syriac in the respective schools had clearly exceeded 15 periods per week.
3. It is contended that in view of the mandate under Rule 3 of Chapter XXXII of the KER the 2nd respondent was statutorily bound to carry out the upgradation.
4. Exhibits P7 and P8 are the requests submitted before respondents 2 and 3 seeking the upgradation of the post of HSST (Jr.Syriac) to HSST. On his part, the 4th respondent manager had also submitted a request for upgradation.
5. The 3rd respondent verified the request made by the Corporate Manager and after perusing the staff fixation orders issued a recommendation wherein it is mentioned that the post of HSST (Jr. Syriac) deserves upgradation with effect from 2012-2013 academic year onwards. According to the petitioners, despite Ext.P11 no action was taken.
6. In the said circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No.27200/2019 and 27526/2019, complaining of inaction by the 2nd respondent and seeking directions.
7. This Court, by Ext.P13 judgment dated 12.3.2020, directed respondents 1 and 2 to consider the issue of upgradation of the post in the light of the law laid down in K.V. Sreejith (supra) and take a decision within three months.
8. In purported compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P14 order holding that the request for upgradation of the post of HSST (Jr.Syriac) to HSST in the respective schools was allowable. However, instead of passing consequential orders, it was stated in the order that the upgradation could not be granted as the details pertaining to the number of students, the number of students who have taken Syriac as a sub-language, and the total number of posts for the academic year 2018-2019 to 2020-2021, were not produced by the ICT cell. The DGE was directed to submit a report regarding the additional financial commitment to the Government if the posts are upgraded.
9. The petitioners contend that Ext.P14 produced in both the writ petitions is untenable and the attempt of the 1st respondent is to protract and delay the matter and nothing more. According to the petitioners, as the upgradation depends on the increase in the workload of a teacher beyond 15 periods it can never be a matter of policy of the Government. According to the petitioners, the order passed by the Government has resulted in grave injustice. Since the posts of the petitioners have not been upgra
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
