SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6318

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
JAYARAJAN P.V – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 3707/2020



Advocates:
KALEESWARAM RAJ, SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY, KUM.A.ARUNA KUM, THULASI K. RAJ, SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.MURALI PALLATH

The court reiterated that distinct roles in educational service cannot be conflated for purposes of seniority and promotion under the applicable rules.

Headnote:

Promotion - Education - Kerala Education Rules - Chapter I, Rule 3; Chapter XIV A, Rule 34(a) - The court upheld the dismissal of the petition for promotion, citing established differences in qualifications and roles between High School Assistants and Physical Education Teachers under the Kerala Education Rules.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his claim for notional promotion to Headmaster, arguing that his prior service as a Physical Education Teacher should be considered in his seniority as a High School Assistant.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was attempting to reopen a settled issue, as a previous judgment had already clarified the distinctions between his roles and denied his claims under the relevant rules.

Issues: Whether the court should grant notional promotion to the petitioner based on prior service that was not considered in the seniority list.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner could not claim promotion or seniority by combining different service roles that are governed by distinct provisions of the Kerala Education Rules.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

(i) “To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P11 as unjust, illegal and unsustainable.

(ii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the post of Headmaster notionally w.e.f

01.04.2011 invoking Rule 3 of Chapter I, KER (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to pass orders promoting the petitioner as Headmaster notionally w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and to approve the appointment, Invoking Rule-3 of Chapter-I ;

iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to disburse the arrears of salary to the petitioner;

v) To issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for and that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.” [SIC]

2. The petitioner was working as High School Assistant (Social Science) at KMVHSS, Kodakkat, Kanhangad. He joined service as a Physical Education Teacher (PET) in the High School section on 01.03.1984 as evident by Ext.P1. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed as HSA (Social Science) on 19.01.1998 as evident by Ext.P2. The appointment of the petitioner as Physical Education Teacher and High School Assistant (Social Science) was approved on regular basis. However, when the seniority list as per Ext.P5 was published, the petitioner was included as rank No.13 reckoning his service as HSA with effect from 19.01.1998 only. The grievance of the petitioner is that the service rendered by the petitioner as Physical Education Teacher in the High School section was not reckoned. Challenging Ext.P7, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C.) No. 19122/2012, which resulted in Ext.P8 judgment. As per Ext.P8 judgment, this Court observed that the pay of the High School Assistant and Physical Education Teacher are different and the petitioner cannot claim that the Physical Education Teachers are equal to High School Assistants. It is based on Rule 34A of Chapter XIV A of KER . Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.P9 representation before the Government requesting to invoke Rule 3 Chapter I and to grant him notional promotion as Headmaster with effect from 01.04.2011. As per the direction in Ext.P10 judgment, the 1st respondent considered the same and issued Ext.P11 Government order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion. Hence, this writ petition is filed directing the 1st respondent to pass orders promoting the petitioner to the post of Headmaster notionally with effect from 01.04.2011 invoking Rule 3 of Chapter I .

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. The Government Pleader takes me through Ext.P8 judgment of this Court and submitted that the petitioner is trying to reopen the settled issue by this Court in that judgment and this Court may not interfere with Ext.P11 order.

5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Government Pleader. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C.) No. 19122/2012 earlier. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner in detail and dismissed the same. It will be better to extract the judgment dated 22.11.2017 in W.P.(C.) No.

19122/2012.

“The petitioner originally joined service in an aided school as Physical Education Teacher. The post of Physical Education Teacher comes within the meaning of Special Teacher as referred under Rule 3 of Chapter XXIII of Kerala Education Rules . The petitioner thereafter was appointed as High School Assistant. The petitioner questions the seniority list of High School Assistants.

2. The petitioner's case is that his service as Physical Education Teacher has to be reckoned for the purpose of seniority.

3. As seen from Rule 34(a) of Chapter XIV A of Kerala Education Rules , in the case of High Schools, a combined seniority list of High School Assistants (Subject) as well as High School A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top