IMPORTANT POINT
The interpretation of Kerala Education Rules, Chapter XXXII Rule 4(3) regarding the appointment process and the rounding off of fractions.

JUDGMENT :

Rival claim between the petitioner and the 5th respondent to the post of HSST (Junior) Economics in the school under the managership of the 4th respondent, is the subject matter of this Writ Petition.

2. As per Ext.P1 dated 06.06.2005, the petitioner was appointed as HSA (Social Studies) from 06.06.2005 onwards, in a regular vacancy. The appointment was duly approved.

3. Much later, Higher Secondary section in the school commenced in the year 2011-12. The sanctioned posts were, eight posts of HSST (Senior) and three posts of HSST (Junior). In the year 2013-14, six posts of HSST (Junior) were sanctioned. Subsequently, during the year 2019-20, one post of HSST (Senior) and two posts of HSST (Junior) were sanctioned. As per Ext.P5 Government Order dated 06.02.2019, one post of HSST (Junior) was upgraded as HSST (Senior). Thus, during the year 2019-20, there existed ten posts of HSST (Junior). One post of HSST (Junior) remained to be filled up.

4. The Rules require 25% of the posts to be filled up by, “by transfer appointment”. Only two HSST (Junior) teachers were in service under the “by transfer” quota. The petitioner is the senior most HSA, entitled for promotion to the post of HSST (Junior). Though the petitioner claimed promotion and appointment as HSST (Junior), ignoring the same, the 5th respondent was appointed.

5. The petitioner challenged before the third respondent – Regional Deputy Director, the appointment of the 5th respondent and also sought his appointment as HSST (Junior). As per Ext.P10 the Regional Deputy Director rejected the claim. The appeal preferred before the Director of General of Education – second respondent was also rejected as per Ext.P13 order. This was followed by Ext.P13(a) order of the third respondent approving the appointment of the 5th respondent. It is aggrieved thereby that the petitioner has approached this Court.

6. I have heard Sri.Murali Pallath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Bijoy Chandran, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, Sri.Ranjit Babu, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri.T.Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel for the 5th respondent. I have also perused the counter affidavit and reply affidavit on record.

7. The total number of posts of HSST (Junior) are ten. There exists one vacancy. The Kerala Education Rules prescribe two modes of appointment; one is, “by transfer appointment” and the other is, “direct appointment”. 25% of the total posts is to be filled up by, “by transfer appointment” and 75% posts is to be filled up by “direct appointment”. The total number of posts being ten, neither the 25% nor 75% would be a whole number, but a fraction. The claim of the petitioner is that, 25% of 10, which comes to 2.5, is to be rounded off as 3. Since only two posts out of 10 posts of HSST (Junior) have been filled up by, “by transfer appointment”, the petitioner who is the senior most, is liable to be accommodated towards the third post, to satisfy the quota of 25%.

8. The director of Higher Secondary Education had issued a Circular dated 30.08.2017 (Ext.P14), wherein it is stated that, “by transfer appointments” shall not exceed 25%. Ext.P15 is a Government communication dated 27.07.2019, reiterating the above. The petitioner challenges Exts.P14 and P15 also. The petitioner relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Pawan Kumar 2005 (2) SCC 10 and Exts.P19, 20 and 21 judgments of this Court in W.P.(C) No.32968/2015, W.A. No.1277/2019 and W.P.(C) No.22064/2019 to contend that, the rule of rounding off is that, if the fraction is one-half or more, it should be rounded off to the next whole digit.

9. The learned senior counsel for the 5th respondent would on the other hand submit that, rounding off a fraction to the next whole digit is not an invariable rule. Exts.P14 and P15, Circular and communication by the Department and the Government, mandated that, “by transfer appointments” should not exceed 25%. It is strictly