Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35176
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
DEEPAK K. NANDAKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/26747/2017
SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD, SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR, SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD, SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, GOVERNMENT PLEADER2) THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION3) THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION4) THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER5) THE MANAGERAdvocate
The post of HSA (English) can be filled while adhering to minimum subject ratios without causing redundancy among existing core subject teachers.
Headnote:
Appointment - Education - KER Rule 6.I - The court approved a petitioner's appointment as HSA (English) following established rules for teacher appointments, emphasizing adherence to minimum subject requirements and protection of teaching posts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought approval for his appointment as HSA (English) from 01.06.2011, which was initially rejected due to a protected teacher's claim to a vacancy. The petitioner argued that the staff fixation allowed for his position based on education standards.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the petitioner was justified under KER Rule 6.I, which required observing minimum subject requirements and did not necessitate the retrenchment of existing core subject teachers.
Issues: Whether the appointment of the petitioner as HSA (English) was in line with applicable regulations and if the protected teacher's claim precluded this appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the minimum subject requirement must be fulfilled and that the new appointment as HSA (English) did not violate any protective clauses concerning existing staff.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the approval of the petitioner’s appointment as HSA (English) with retrospective effect.
Challenge in this writ petition is directed against Ext.P10 order, by which the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as HSA (English) with effect from 01.06.2011 was rejected on the ground of failure on the part of the Manager to appoint a protected teacher. The petitioner has sought for issuance of directions to respondents 1 to 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as HSA (English) with effect from 01.06.2011 and for consequential benefits.
2. The summary of facts as is born out from the pleadings are as under:
The petitioner asserts that he was appointed as HSA (English) in the HSS Panangad on the cover of Ext.P1 order with effect from 01.06.2011. Referring to Ext.P2 staff fixation order, it is contended that during the academic year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, four posts of HSA (English) were sanctioned in the school. However, as there was no qualified English teacher in the School till the academic year 2010-2011, teaching was carried out by HSA (Social Science) teachers against HSA (English) cadre. Though the proposal for appointment of the petitioner was submitted before the 4th respondent, the same was rejected by Ext.P3 order, on the ground that one V. K . Dharmarajan, who was a protected HSA (Social Science), was deployed to MESHS P. Vemballur and that he has to be appointed in the said vacancy. Though the matter was taken up in appeal, the same was rejected by the 3rd respondent by Ext.P4 order. The revision petition filed challenging the said order was also dismissed by Ext.P5.
3. The petitioner asserts that while so, a retirement vacancy arose in the school with effect from 03.06.2013, and he was appointed as HSA (English) with effect from 03.06.2013 by Ext.P6 order. The appointment was approved with effect from the date of the appointment.
4. Being aggrieved by Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent, the manager preferred a revision petition before the 1st respondent. By Ext.P8 order, the 1st respondent confirmed the grant of approval. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite Ext.P8 order, the grant of approval with effect from 01.06.2011 was declined by the 2nd respondent by Ext.P10 order. This has led the petitioner to approach this Court with this Writ Petition.
5. I have heard Sri. T.T. Muhamood, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
6. I find that Ext.P2 is the staff fixation order which shows the posts sanctioned in HSS Panangad for the academic year 2011-2012 to 2015- 2016. Ext.P2 would reveal that out of 17 posts sanctioned in the year, 4 posts were that of HSA (English). The same continued till the academic year 2015-2016. It was when Smt. A. B. Meena, HSA (Mathematics), was promoted as HM, that the petitioner was appointed as HSA (English), considering the subject requirement. I find that the proposal submitted by the Manager was rejected on the ground that a certain Sri. V. K .Dharmarajan, who is HSA (Social Science), is a protected teacher who was deployed to MESHS P, Vemballur, and the said protected teacher has to be appointed in the promotion vacancy.
7. The staff fixation order clearly provides for 4 posts of HSA (English) for the academic year 2011-2012. It was as per GO (MS) No. 11/02 / G.Edn. dated 07/01/2002 that the post of HSA (English) was introduced to uplift the standard of teaching in English. A perusal of the order would show that the Director of Public Instruction informed the Government that the present method of teaching English followed in High Schools is ineffective in the absence of qualified H.S.As in English language, leading to low percentage of pass in the subject. The proposal forwarded by the DPI was accepted and the above referred order was passed. The portion of the Government Order relevant for our purpose is extracted below for easy reference. Xxxxx xxxxxx a) A new cadre of HSA(English) will be created in the Aided and Government Schools by re-allocating the periods of English now allocated to the
