Reappointment rights in educational employment depend on recognized workloads and adherence to statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17 ^th day of December, 2024 The writ petition is preferred, being aggrieved by Exts.P7 and P9 orders passed by the University as well as the Government, whereby approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Professor in the 7^th respondent's College, was declined.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as the Junior Lecturer in Hindi in the 7^th respondent College on 18.10.1989 in a leave vacancy. The said appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Kerala University and she received salary for the period of her service from the Government. Under Section 57 (6)(b) of the Kerala University Act , the petitioner claims that she got a preferential claim for reappointment against the next arising vacancy. Moreover, it is also stated that the petitioner has acquired protection under Statute 23(2) of the Kerala University (Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of Non-Teaching Staff) First Statutes, 1979 (for short ‘the First Statute, 1979'). On these claims, the petitioner was reappointed to the retirement vacancy with effect from 08.07.2015 in the same Department by the 7^th respondent Manager. However, her appointment was not approved by the Kerala University stating that there is no sufficient workload in the Hindi Department. Being aggrieved by the same, the husband of the petitioner approached the Government by preferring Ext.P8, which was rejected on the ground that there is no sufficient workload in the 7^th respondent's College after the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 08.07.2015.

3. In that event, the petitioner brought to the attention of this Court the Kerala University First Ordinance, 1978; Clause 6 of which stipulates "Procedure for calculating the number of teachers required for a Department: it is provided under sub clause (i) that "from the total hours so calculated, the workload of the Principal (if the Principal belongs to the Department) and Head of the Department shall be deducted. The balance hours so arrived at shall be divided by the maximum workload of a teacher after deduction as prescribed above, if there is balance of hours exceeding six hours a proposal for the creation of an additional post may be made with the sanction of the University and additional post can be created. The workload shall be distributed equally among all teachers." In sub clause (ii): "additional post will be sanctioned only if there are periods above six…..”

4. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, the order issued by the Government as per Ext.P12. Even in Ext. P12, the Government has clarified that additional post will be sanctioned only if there are periods above six.

5. In these circumstances, the petitioner brought to the attention of this Court the work assessment conducted in the College in the year 2001 by the Director of Collegiate Education, as per Ext.P10, whereby against Hindi, it is stated that the total workload assessed is 22. Number of teachers permitted as per the assessed workload is one. However, the number of teachers working in the College at that point of time was three. Thereby two teachers were in excess. It is also pointed out that extra hours as per the relaxed norms and eligible post is 6 hours in one teacher post. At the time of reappointment of the petitioner, it is stated that the other two teachers, who were treated as excess, retired. Against one such retirement vacancy, the petitioner was accommodated. Under such circumstances, the rejection as per Exts.P7 and P9 are not sustainable and seeking for a direction to reconsider the issue in the light of the aforementioned circumstances.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5^th respondent in which it is admitted that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Lecturer in the scale of pay 975-1720 by the Manager, MSM College, Kayamkulam with effect from 18.10.1989 in the leave vacancy of Sri.Thyagarajan P., Lecturer in Hindi. The petitioner worked