Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6958
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
P S SHABU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA Advocate - GOVERNMENT PLEADER GOVERNMENT PLEADER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 28434/2014
A school manager may appoint a non-protected teacher if no list of protected teachers is provided, per Kerala Education Regulations.
Headnote:
Employment - Appointment of Teacher - Kerala Education Rules - Section 51A - The court upheld a previous ruling that a manager is not obliged to wait indefinitely for a list of protected teachers when appointing for a vacancy, allowing the petitioner's appointment due to lack of provided list.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an HSA, claimed an appointment against a retirement vacancy but was initially rejected by the DEO based on the failure to appoint a protected teacher as mandated by the rules, although no such list was provided by authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the DEO's actions, agreeing with prior rulings that lack of a protected teacher list grants the manager the authority to appoint others, thereby allowing the petitioner's position.
Issues: Whether the petitioner’s appointment could be denied solely due to the failure to appoint a protected teacher when no list was provided.
Ratio Decidendi: The decision reaffirmed that the absence of a protected teacher list to the school manager removes the obligation to appoint from that category.
Final Decision: Writ petition allowed; previous rejections quashed with an order to approve petitioner's appointment and grant benefits.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner asserts to be working as an High School Assistant (HSA) (Maths) in the All Saints High School, Puthayam, Anchal. He says that he was appointed with effect from 14.06.2017 against a retirement vacancy and that his appointment was forwarded by the Manager for approval to the competent authorities. The petitioner alleges that his appointment was, however, rejected by the District Educational Officer (DEO) by Exhibit P2 order for the reason that the school, being one that was categorised as a newly opened school, the vacancy ought to have been filled up by protected teachers and because another claimant, under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA KER , has staked claim to such vacancy.
2. When this matter was taken up today, I am told by the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned WPC 28434/14 2 counsel appearing for the Manager that the Rule 51A claimant has already been accommodated in another vacancy and that her appointment has already been approved. That brings us to the only issue as to whether the petitioner's approval should be denied for the reason that the Manager did not fill up the vacancy by a protected teacher.
3. I am told by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he did not appoint a protected teacher since no such list was forwarded to him by the Educational Authorities and that, therefore, the rigor of the relevant Government Order could not apply. He is relying on the judgment of this Court reported in Manojkumar P.S. v. State of Kerala ( 2013 KHC 2894 ), which has declared the law that if no list of protected teachers is provided to the Manager by the competent authorities, he would not be obliged to wait infinitely for appointing a protected teacher and that he would obtain the competence to appoint some one else.
WPC 28434/14 3
4. I am in respectful confirmation of the observations and conclusions of the learned Single Judge in Manoj Kumar's case (supra) and find no reason to deviate therefrom.
5. In such circumstances, I am pursuaded to allow this writ petition and to quash Exhibits P2, P3, P4 and P6. I do so. Respondents 1 to 4 are, therefore, directed to issue appropriate orders approving the appointment of the petitioner as HSA (Maths) with effect from 04.06.2007 and to grant her all consequential benefits. Such appropriate orders shall be issued by the respondents as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered as above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv
