Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Hakkeem K. & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
District Education Officer, Malappuram & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) Nos. 46812 of 2018, 2774 and 5691 of 2019
Decided On : 13-03-2023
Kerala Education Rules, 1959 - Rule 51A, 53, 49, 52, 54 - Permanent vacancy - Resignation letter - Discontinue service - In Ext P2, petitioner, requested Manager to allow him to discontinue his service in school, anticipating a permanent vacancy - Ext P2 cannot be treated as a resignation letter. (Para 16)
Findings of the Court :
Ext P2 cannot be treated as a resignation letter - Mr. Hakkeem discontinued service to get a permanent appointment in that school itself - Contents in Ext P2 would show that it is not a resignation letter - Moreover Rule 54 Chapter XIV A KER is not applicable in this case because that is applicable once a teacher is 're-appointed' - Here question is whether Sri. Hakkeem can be appointed as a Rule 51 A KER claimant - Moreover, Court is of considered opinion that Rule 53 Chapter XIV A KER is also not applicable because Ext.P2 submitted by Sri. Hakkeem cannot be treated as a termination of service by a teacher.
Result : WP allowed.
JUDGMENT :
These writ petitions are connected; therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment. First, I will narrate the facts in WP(C) No. 5691 of 2019.
2. The petitioner in this case, Sri. Hakkeem K. was appointed as the High School Assistant (English) (in short, 'HSA') on 27.07.2011 in a leave vacancy that occurred consequent to the leave availed by Sri. Abdul Nazar K., for a period from 27.07.2011 to 31.03.2013. However, this appointment was approved by the 3rd respondent, The District Educational Officer only on 16.07.2016. Ext.P1 is the appointment order. Later, the leave was extended by Sri. Abdul Nazar for a period from 03.06.2013 to 31.05.2014 and thereafter from 02.06.2014 to 31.05.2015. Hence the petitioner was again appointed in the extended leave period of Sri. Abdul Nazar. Since the appointment of the petitioner in the leave vacancy was not approved, it is the case of the petitioner that he made a request on 31.12.2014 to the 4th respondent, Manager, stating that he may be permitted to join duty on a permanent vacancy in the school. Ext.P2 is the request made by the petitioner. In Ext P2, the petitioner, in effect, requested the Manager to allow him to discontinue his service in the school, anticipating a permanent vacancy. The fourth respondent accepted the same as evident from the endorsement in Ext.P2. Meanwhile, in 2011-12, an additional division vacancy in HSA (English) arose. To the said vacancy, one Smt. K.U. Anju was appointed. Later a permanent vacancy arose in the category of HSA (English) consequent to the retirement of Smt. P.B. Suma. To the said vacancy, Smt. K.U. Anju was appointed on 01.06.2015. The resultant additional division vacancy was filled up by appointing the 5th respondent Smt. Vidya Dharithri M.P. The appointment of the 5th respondent was rejected by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P3 order. The 5th respondent Smt. Vidya Dharithri filed an appeal against Ext.P3 order and it was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Education. However, the revision petition filed by the 5th respondent, Smt. Vidya Dharithri was allowed by the Director of Public Instructions as per Ext.P4 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, the petitioner filed a revision petition dated 30.10.2017 before the 1st respondent, The State Government, as evident by Ext.P5. The petitioner also approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.35525 of 2017 and this Court was pleased to stay Ext.P4 till the disposal of Ext.P5 revision as per Ext.P6 judgment.
3. According to the petitioner – Sri. Hakkeem K., he is a claimant of Rule 51A of Chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as, 'KER') and he ought to have been appointed in a permanent vacancy that arose on 01.06.2015. The petitioner relied on a judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Soman P.S. v. A.K.M. High School Poyya and Others [2013 (2) KHC 173] and contended that he is entitled to get the benefits under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV(A) of KER. It is the case of the petitioner that the manager appointed, the 5th respondent, Smt. Vidya Dharithri overlooking his claim. According to the petitioner, the manager has not followed the statutory mandates in Rule 51A before appointing Smt. Vidya Dharithri. It is the case of the petitioner that no notice was issued to the petitioner before appointing a fresh hand as stipulated under Note (2) of Rule 51A. But the Government as per Ext.P7 order, rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, WP(C) No.5691 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner, Sri. Hakeem K. with the following prayers :
(ii) issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 and P7.
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to appoint and approve the appointment with effect from 1.6.2015 onwards and pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner.
(iv) issue such other writs, orders, directions including interim orders deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
(
A teacher who quits service loses entitlement to benefits under Rule 51A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959.
Important points:The appellant had rendered service in the leave vacancy for the period between 27.10.1986 and 30.9.1991 which was the period covered by his appointment letter as approved by the Educ....
Services of leave substitutes will be regularized against the first arising permanent/regular vacancy in the respective schools in the order of seniority
The main legal point established in the judgment is that promotions are to be made from persons possessing the prescribed qualifications at the time of occurrence of the vacancy, and the interpretati....
Right to preferential appointment envisaged therein accrues only to a teacher who has been “relieved” in any of the circumstances mentioned in the Rule.
a teacher who has obtained a right to preferential appointment to future vacancies in identified posts, based on past service rendered in a teaching post in the school prior to retrenchment therefrom....
Exemptions from K-TET qualifications are not indefinite; adherence to current regulations is mandatory for teacher appointments.
The manager's discretion in teacher appointments is subject to established preference rights under the Kerala Education Rules.
Employment - Rule 51B was introduced in statute book - After the introduction of said Rule, a liability is cast on Managers to give employment to a dependent of an Aided School teacher or a member of....
Appointments must comply with stipulated qualifications; hence, prior erroneously granted approvals may be reversed to ensure adherence to legal standards.
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
