Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J.
Manager, Mowancherry U.P. School - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) No. 25446 Of 2023
Decided On : 13-05-2025
(A) Education Act - Staff Fixation Orders - Appointment of Teachers - The 2nd petitioner was appointed as UPST but faced denial of approval due to management disputes and alleged lack of accommodation for additional posts. The court found that sufficient student strength existed to justify additional posts, and the denial was unjustified. (Paras 1, 10, 14, 18)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that the Staff Fixation Orders not sanctioning additional divisions despite available students could not be upheld due to procedural delays caused by management disputes. (Paras 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the denial of approval for the 2nd petitioner's appointment as UPST from 2012 to 2017, citing sufficient classroom availability and student strength. (Paras 1, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the contested orders, and directed the approval of the 2nd petitioner's appointment with all consequential benefits. (Paras 19)
Issues: The main issues included the justification for denying the appointment of the 2nd petitioner and the implications of management disputes on staff fixation. (Paras 10, 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of timely management approval should not penalize the 2nd petitioner, emphasizing the need for equitable treatment in staff appointments. (Paras 19)
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
N.NAGARESH, J.
The 1st petitioner is the Manager of Mowanchery UP School and the 2nd petitioner is a UPST appointed in the School. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as UPST as per Ext.P1 appointment order dated 04.06.2012. Approval to the appointment was declined as per Ext.P2 Government Order dated 17.10.2016 on the ground that the vacancy had to be filled up by appointing protected Teacher. Ext.P2 further stated that there is management dispute.
2. For the academic year 2013-2014, though there were sufficient student strength in standard V to sanction two additional posts of UPSA, the posts were not sanctioned. One additional Division in LP Section was, however, sanctioned. No LPSA could be appointed during the academic year 2013-2014. The petitioners state that there were 24 classrooms (22 classrooms + 2 extra spaces) and 23 divisions were sanctioned. If the number of Divisions in the LP Section was limited to 10, which was the actual number of LPSAs engaged, one additional Division could have been sanctioned in UP Section. This was the position in 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017.
3. The 2nd petitioner filed Appeal against the Staff Fixation Orders. The Appeal was rejected as per Ext.P8, holding that only an approved Manager can file an Appeal against the Staff Fixation Order. The 2nd petitioner filed Ext.P9 revision/representation against Ext.P8. The claim of the petitioners was allowed in part, directing the 4th respondent to approve the appointment of the 2nd petitioner from 01.04.2017, as per Ext.P11 Government Order dated 18.09.2017.
4. The petitioners state that the reason stated in Ext.P11 that there was no accommodation for the additional post, is incorrect. There are 24 classrooms and only 22 Teachers working from 2012-2013 onwards. The 2nd petitioner therefore challenged Ext.P11. The 3rd respondent as per Ext.P15, declined the request to sanction additional Division in UP Section holding that there was no accommodation available.
5. In W.P.(C) No.20068 of 2019, this Court set aside Ext.P15 and directed the 3rd respondent to reconsider the matter as per Ext.P17 judgment. The 3rd respondent, however, rejected the request as per Ext.P18 order, reiterating the stand in Ext.P15. When the 2nd petitioner filed Contempt of Court Case No.1253 of 2023, the 3rd respondent has withdrawn Ext.P18 and issued Ext.P19 order. Subsequently, pursuant to the directions in W.P.(C) No.23657 of 2023, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P21 order dated 08.08.2024, repeating the very same reasons. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. The counsel for the petitioners would argue that in case it is not possible to approve the appointment of the 2nd petitioner for the period from 04.06.2012 to 31.05.2013, there is no difficulty in shifting the 2nd petitioner and accommodating him in the additional Division vacancy which occurred in 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. In the facts of the case, the 1st respondent ought to have exercised the powers under the Rule and directed to accommodate the 2nd petitioner in the additional vacancies, which occurred.
7. The respondents filed counter affidavit and resisted the writ petition. The 3rd respondent stated that from 2013-2014 to 2015-2016, 12 posts of LPSA and 11 posts of UPSA were sanctioned totalling 23 Divisions, one of which was an additional Division. During this period, 10 LPST and 11 UPST, including HM, worked in the School with approval. In the category of UPSA, there was no vacancy to accommodate the 2nd petitioner. The 2nd petitioner could not have been appointed against LPST vacancy, as the 2nd petitioner did not possess TTC.
8. The 3rd respondent further stated that the UPST post commensurate with the students strength in the 5th standard was not sanctioned in the School since from 2013-2014 to 2016-2017 as there was no sufficient accommodation. The 3rd respondent has no power to redetermine the Staff strength at this length of time. In the facts of the case, the writ
The court ruled that management disputes should not unjustly deny teacher appointments when sufficient student strength exists, emphasizing equitable treatment in staff fixation.
Denial of education staff position was invalid due to delayed sanction contradicting statutory requirements.
The court affirmed that the appointment approval should not be limited and directed the implementation of prior orders for salary disbursement.
Denial of appointment approval from initial dates due to prior vacancies is deemed illegal according to court directives.
Natural justice requires a hearing before denying approval of appointment in educational appointments.
The right to appointment under educational service provisions is contingent on prior approved service and seniority, overriding later claims.
Rejection of appointment based on untimely revision of staff fixation is flawed under Kerala Educational Rules.
Government must consider pending representations and existing vacancies when approving appointments.
Court affirms reconsideration of appointment approval upon resolving management disputes.
The urgency in educational staffing compliance underscores the need for timely administrative decisions aligned with judicial directives.
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
