Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J.
P.R. Ramkumar S/o Ponnumani - Petitioner
Versus
Principal Secretary General Education Department Thiruvananthapuram - Respondent
WP (C) No. 15990 of 2023
Decided On : 06-03-2025
(A) Kerala Education Act, 1958 - Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA - Appointment on compassionate grounds - Petitioner's father passed away in service in 1985; petitioner sought appointment under compassionate grounds, but was appointed only in 2015 with approval from 01.06.2016. The Manager's failure to appoint the petitioner from 01.06.2010, as per the vacancy arising, is deemed unjustified. The court upheld the Manager's decision, stating the petitioner cannot claim a notional appointment prior to the actual appointment date due to delays caused by litigation. (Paras 1 - 15 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to set aside orders that did not grant him a notional appointment from 01.06.2010 despite his father's death while in service. The Manager had delayed the appointment due to ongoing litigation and the ban on appointments during certain years.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner's regular appointment was only from 01.06.2016, and thus he could not claim seniority or appointment from an earlier date due to the delays and legal complications.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was entitled to a notional appointment from 01.06.2010 and the legality of the Manager's actions in denying this claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioner cannot claim a notional appointment prior to the actual appointment date of 01.06.2016 due to the delays caused by litigation and the Manager's compliance with government orders. The petition was deemed devoid of merit.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
N. NAGARESH, J.
The petitioner, whose father passed away on 17.07.1985 while working as UPSA in Evans Schools, Parassala, has filed this writ petition seeking to set aside Exts.P10, P13 and P14 to the extent of non-reckoning of his appointment notionally with effect from 01.06.2010 from the date of occurrence of vacancy in which his appointment has been approved.
2. The petitioner's father while working in the Evans Schools died in harness on 17.07.1985. The petitioner is entitled to get appointment on compassionate grounds under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER. On attaining majority, the petitioner submitted an application for appointment. The Manager of the School declined the claim of the petitioner.
3. The AEO passed Ext.P1 order dated 29.09.2006 directing the Manager to appoint the petitioner in the vacancy of UPSA arising after 12.01.2005. The revision petition filed by the Manager against Ext.P1 was rejected. Ext.P2 revisional order dated 31.05.2008 was challenged in W.P.(C) No.18868/2008, W.A. No.365/2015 and SLP No.1637/2015. All those litigations went against the Manager and in favour of the petitioner.
4. During the said period, certain UPSAs approached this Court for approval of their appointment in additional division vacancies. The Government directed the Manager to approve their appointments if the only objection is the non-appointment of the petitioner. The Government also, as per Ext.P6, directed the Manager to give appointment to the petitioner if judgment in the writ petition filed by the petitioner goes against the Manager.
5. The petitioner states that appointment of UPSAs in the additional division vacancies was approved after obtaining an undertaking from them to the effect that they have no objection in revising their seniority based on the judgment in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner states that he was given appointment in the year 2015 and the appointment was approved with effect from 01.06.2016 as per Ext.P10. The petitioner was retrenched on 16.07.2018 as per Ext.P11 to accommodate one T.S. Sharmila Jose (HSA). Ext.P11 was set aside by the 3rd respondent.
6. The petitioner states that as per the approved seniority list as on 31.01.2018, the petitioner is placed below respondents 8 to 13. The petitioner is entitled to reckon his seniority notionally from 01.06.2010 as his appointment being in the vacancy of additional post arisen in the year 2010-2011. The Staff Fixation Order for the year 2019-2020 has resulted in reduction of one post of UPSA and the petitioner was thrown out treating him as the juniormost. The petitioner challenged the said order in revision. The revisional authority rejected the revision as per Ext.P14.
7. The petitioner contends that he is entitled to be appointed in the additional division vacancy arisen on 01.06.2010 to satisfy his Rule 51B claim. He is entitled to be appointed in the first arising vacancy after 12.01.2005. There was ban of appointment in the additional division vacancies during the years 2005-2010. On lifting the ban, the petitioner ought to have been appointed in the year 2010-2011. The Manager has illegally denied the right of the petitioner.
8. The 5th respondent-AEO filed counter affidavit. The 5th respondent stated that as per GO dated 31.05.2008 the Government directed the Manager to give appointment to the petitioner in the next arising vacancy. The Manager did not implement the Government Order. Approval of appointments as UPSAs was given after obtaining undertaking of the UPSAs that they do not have any objection in revising their seniority at a future date, based on the judgment in W.P.(C) No.18868/2008. The 5th respondent submitted that the petitioner has appointment approval as UPSA with effect from 01.06.2016 and he is eligible for seniority with effect from 01.06.2016.
9. The 6th respondent in her counter affidavit pointed out that the appointment of the petitioner as UPSA with effect from 23.09.2015 to 31.03.2016 was appr
A petitioner cannot claim a notional appointment prior to the actual appointment date due to delays caused by litigation and administrative decisions.
The court affirmed that the appointment approval should not be limited and directed the implementation of prior orders for salary disbursement.
The right to appointment under educational service provisions is contingent on prior approved service and seniority, overriding later claims.
The judgment establishes that decisions affecting rights must involve the parties concerned, ensuring fairness in administrative actions.
Services of leave substitutes will be regularized against the first arising permanent/regular vacancy in the respective schools in the order of seniority
The requirement for contemporaneous documentation in employment appointment cases is essential; lack of genuine records can invalidate administrative decisions.
Timely application submission is crucial for compassionate appointments; failure to apply within stipulated limits invalidates subsequent claims.
The court upheld the legitimacy of a teacher's appointment while emphasizing the need for timely challenges against administrative orders affecting employment positions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a claim for compassionate appointment after 11 years, when the petitioner had already applied for compassionate appointment i....
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
