Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34239
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T. R. Ravi, J
SHEEBA.K.OMMEN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 15514/2017
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.M.SAJJAD, SRI VENUGOPAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.B.MOHANLAL, SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW
The court established that the qualifications for the posts of HSA and TSA are distinct, and reversion without proper approval is invalid.
Headnote:
Employment - Education - The court examined the legality of appointments and promotions within educational institutions, emphasizing qualifications and approvals required for such positions, ultimately affirming the rightful position of the petitioner based on prior approvals.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves two writ petitions concerning the appointment and promotion of teachers in an educational institution, specifically focusing on the reversion of one teacher and the qualifications required for different teaching posts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reversion of the petitioner was unjustified as it was not approved by the Educational Officer, and the qualifications for the posts of HSA and TSA were distinct, thus affirming the petitioner's right to continue in her position.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the reversion of the petitioner from TSA to UPSA was valid and whether the qualifications for the posts of HSA and TSA allowed for such a transfer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the posts of HSA and TSA are not interchangeable due to differing qualifications, and the prior approval of the petitioner's promotion as TSA was not challenged, thus affirming her entitlement to the position.
Final Decision: The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing her to continue as TSA and rejecting the claims of the other teacher.
JUDGMENT
The issues involved in these two writ petitions are intrinsically connected and hence the same are heard and disposed of together.
2. W.P(C).27781 of 2017 has been filed by Smt.Animole, who was appointed as UPSA under the 6th respondent management with effect from 1.08.2011 in a permanent vacancy. Her appointment was approved by the educational authorities. She was later promoted as Training School Assistant (TSA) with effect from 04.07.2013. The said promotion and the appointment were approved as can be seen from Ext.P1. During the year 2014-2015, the Manager, on a contention that one post of HSA (NS) was reduced, shifted one Smt.Mercy Koshy, HSA(NS) to the post of TSA, which was held by Animole, and ordered the reversion of Animole as UPSA. Ext.P2 is the order. According to Animole, there was no reduction of post of HSA(NS) during 2014-2015. She also contends that Smt.Mercy Koshy was not qualified to be appointed to the post of TSA in terms of the NCTE Regulations of 2014, Ext.P16, which was then in force. The order shifting Smt.Mercy Koshy as TSA was not approved by the Educational Officer. In Ext.P4 order dated 14.03.2016, the Government also disapproved of the action. When Ext.P4 was not implemented by restoring Smt.Animole to the post of TSA, she filed W.P(C).No.16838 of 2016 before this Court for implementation of the order. Smt.Mercy Koshy filed W.P(C).No.15106 of 2016 for payment of her salary. Another teacher Smt.E.J.Gracykutty filed W.P(C).No.33063/2015 apprehending that she would be affected as she was junior to Smt.Mercy Koshy. The above three writ petitions were disposed of by this Court by common judgment dated 01.06.2016 which has been produced as Ext.P5. This Court directed the Government to reconsider the issue with notice to respondents 4 to 7 in W.P(C).No.33063/2015 and any other teacher who is likely to be affected. It was specifically directed that Smt.Mercy Koshy, Smt.Animole and Smt.Sheeba K. Oommen should also be heard. While so, the Manager had issued Ext.P6(a) proceedings on 28.04.2016 whereby Smt.Sheeba K.Oommen HSA (PS) was shifted as TSA with effect from 15.07.2014. Thereafter, the Government issued Ext.P6 order in purported compliance of the directions of this Court in Ext.P5 judgment. In Ext.P6 order, the Government directed to accommodate Smt.Sheeba K. Oommen against the post of TSA. Smt.Animole has challenged Ext.P6 order in W.P(C).No.27781 of 2017.
3. W.P(C).No.15514 of 2017 has been filed by Smt.Sheeba K. Oommen challenging Ext.P7 order dated 27.03.2017 which is the order Ext.P6 produced in W.P(C).No.27781 of 2017. She has also challenged Exts.P8 and P9 orders. Ext.P8 produced in W.P(C).No.15514 of 2017 is a letter issued by the District Educational Officer directing the Manager to implement the directions contained in the Government Order dated 27.03.2017. Ext.P9 order is the order dated 17.05.2017 issued by the Management pursuant to the directions issued in the order dated 27.03.2017 wherein Smt.Animole was directed to be transferred and posted as UPSA in St.George VHSS, Chowalloor from 15.07.2014 to 14.07.2015. Smt.Animole was further directed to be transferred and posted as UPSA in St.Mary's MMUPS, Adoor against an existing sanctioned post allowed in terms of G.O.(P).No.29/2016 dated 29.01.2016. Smt.Sheeba K.Ommen was transferred and posted as HSA (PS) in MAMHS, Chengamanad with immediate effect and it was ordered that lien adjustment of Smt.Sheeba K.Ommen will be issued after the disposal of W.P(C).No.15514 of 2017.
4. Counter affidavits have been filed by the contesting respondents and the Government in these cases. Even though, the facts narrated in the writ petition and in the counter affidavits are very elaborate, I do not think it is necessary to reproduce the entire pleadings since the issue involved falls within a narrow compass.
5. The fact that Smt.Animole was appointed as a UPSA and later promoted as TSA as per Ext. P1 is not disputed. Her appointment as TSA was a
