Back
2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 75743
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J
SIMI JOHN – Appellant
Versus
DY.DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION – Respondent
WP(C)/5811/2010
SRI.JACOB P.ALEX, SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SRI.T.ISSAC S GOPINATHAN SR GP
Approval for a position, once granted, upholds an employee's entitlement to compensation despite any later challenges to qualifications.
Headnote:
Promotion - Educational Qualifications - Act Section List - The court examined the qualifications required for the post of HSA and ruled that the petitioner, having the necessary approval despite not fulfilling the qualification for Physical Science, is entitled to salary.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was promoted to HSA (Natural Science) but lacked qualifications for HSA (Physical Science). Disputes arose concerning salary approval following rejections by educational authorities. Previous court directives mandated reconsideration which led to a conditional approval.
Finding of the Court:
The court emphasized that as long as the approval remains effective, it cannot be challenged based on the qualifications mismatch. The petitioner is entitled to salary as per the existing approval.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary despite not holding the required qualifications for HSA (Physical Science) and issues regarding the validity of approval.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that approval granted is binding, and objections regarding qualifications cannot impact salary disbursement if the approval is valid.
Final Decision: The impugned proceedings were quashed, confirming the petitioner's entitlement to salary.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, a UPSA was promoted as HSA (Natural Science) with effect from 02.06.2004 in a vacancy of Valsa George. Valsa George was accommodated in a vacancy of HSA (Physical Science). Valsa George did not possess the qualification to teach the subject Physical Science. She was permitted to continue on the strength of a circular issued by the Government dated 10.02.1995.
2. The petitioner also does not possess necessary qualification for HSA (Physical Science). Petitioner is only qualified for HSA (Natural Science). The question that was considered by the educational authority was whether a person having minimum qualification can be accommodated in that post. The District Educational Officer rejected. Thereupon, the Deputy Director remitted. Again District Educational Officer rejected which resulted in filing WP(C) No.33841/2005 by the Manager.
3. This Court disposed WP(C) No.33841/2005 on
16.06.2006 setting aside the order of District Educational Officer. The District Educational Officer was directed to reconsider the matter. Thereafter, the District Educational Officer passed Ext.P5 order. The relevant portion of Ext.P5 is as follows:-
“In the above circumstances, the undersigned re examined the case and approval the appointment of Smt.Simi John as HSA(NS) a rule 43 claimant from 2.6.04 onwards on the basis of WP(C) No.33841/2004 dated 16.6.06 and order No.B2/21892/04/K.Dis dated 29.3.05 and this the Honourable High Court direction is hereby complied with.”
That approval is in force. Thereafter, when a bill was raised for payment of salary, the District Educational Officer observed that the petitioner was continuing in the post of HSA (Physical Science) contrary to the existing subject ratio. It was so observed after referring to staff fixation order 2009-2010.
4. The approval was granted on 19.07.2006. The petitioner approached this Court in this writ petition since salary was denied. Based on the interim order, the petitioner is enjoying salary.
5. It is to be noted that the approval is in force and unless and until it is varied, the educational officer cannot object to disbursal of salary stating that continuation was contrary to existing subject ratio. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are quashed. It is made clear that so long as the approval of the petitioner is in force, the petitioner is entitled to salary.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.B2/4782/04/K.DIS DATED 16-11-2004 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.B3-
21892/04/K.DIS DATED 29.3.2005 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.B2-
3185/05/L.DIS. DATED 20.10.2005 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF HTE JUDGMENT DATED 16.6.2006 IN WP(C) NO.33841 OF 2005 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/11418/05/K.DIS DATED 19.7.2006 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/10189/N.DIS DATED
16.12.2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 08.01.2010 BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 08.01.2010 BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.B2-
153/2010/LDIS.DATED 14.01.2010 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.B3/493/10/N.DIS DATED 23.01.10
