Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38158
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
THE MANAGER, BHAGAVATHY VILASSAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/26557/2021
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD
Misapplication of government orders regarding teacher appointments requires reevaluation to ensure compliance with earlier exemptions for vacancies.
Headnote:
Approval - Education - G.O.(P) No.29/2016/G.Edn, G.O.(RT) No.4735/2017/G.Edn - The court quashed previous orders denying approval for the appointment based on a reconsideration of earlier government orders, concluding they were misapplied regarding teacher selection procedures.
Fact of the Case:
The 1st petitioner is the Manager of a school, and the 2nd petitioner was appointed as HSA (Physical Science). The appointment was rejected on grounds that the previous holder's resignation was unapproved and thus created a vacancy that was improperly filled.
Issues: Whether the denial of approval for the appointment of the 2nd petitioner was justified based on prior unapproved resignations and the applicability of government orders regarding protected teacher appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the government orders were misinterpreted, necessitating a fresh consideration of the approval for the petitioner's appointment in light of the previous directives that exempted certain vacancies from specific hiring constraints.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of favoring the petitioners, requiring reconsideration of the appointment approval.
JUDGMENT
The 1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5638 of 2018 is the Manager of Bhagavathy Vilasam Higher Secondary School, Nayarambalam. The 2nd petitioner is Smt.Veena Varghese who was appointed as HSA (Physical Science) in the school with effect from 1.6.2016. The above writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P2 and P5 orders issued by educational authorities rejecting the approval of the appointment of the 2nd petitioner, on the short ground that her appointment was in the resignation vacancy of Smt.V.R.Preetha and as the appointment of Smt.V.R.Preetha has not been approved she also is not entitled to approval.
2. It appears that while the writ petition was pending, the Manager as well as the 2nd petitioner had submitted separate revision petitions before the 1st respondent, which were rejected by order dated 11.12.2017. The said order is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.26557 of 2021.
3. As common issues are involved, both these writ petitions are taken up and disposed of by a common judgment.
4. The records would reveal that a certain Smt.V.R.Preetha was appointed as HSA (Physical Science) with effect from 27.7.2015 in the vacancy of Smt.P.K.Rema, Headmistress of BVHSS, who had retired from service on 31.3.2015. The Manager promoted Smt.M.K.Girija, HSA (Natural Science) as Headmistress in the retirement vacancy of Smt.P.K.Rema with effect from
1.4.2015 and the said appointment stands approved.
5. While so, the aforesaid V.R.Preetha who was continuing in the sanctioned post of HSA (Physical Science), submitted her resignation on 27.7.2015. In the resultant vacancy, Veena Varghese was appointed as HSA (Physical Science) with effect from 1.6.2016. The proposal for approval was rejected by the DEO on the ground that the appointment of Smt.V.R.Preetha was not approved. In Ext.P5 order, it is stated that in terms of G.O.(P) No.29/2016/G.Edn dated 29.1.2016, the vacancy that has arisen in the school has to be filled by appointing protected teacher in the core subjects from the teachers bank. According to the petitioner, Smt. Veena Varghese was appointed against a vacancy which was available prior to the issuance of G.O.(P) No.29/2016/G.Edn dated 29.1.2016, the conditions therein shall not apply. The petitioner contends that the Government has issued Exts.P9 to P11 orders which shows that in respect of vacancies that are available prior to 2016-2017, no insistence need be made for the appointment of protected teacher. It is contended that the petitioners have been discriminated against.
6. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No.
26557/2022, it is stated that the 2nd petitioner was appointed as HST (PS) with effect from 1.6.2016 in a vacancy that arose due to the resignation of Smt.V.R.Preetha who was continuing unapproved as HSA (Physical Science) with effect from 27.7.2015. It is stated that in Ext.P5, the Government has clarified that whenever a teacher in core subjects under the management is retrenched and deployed to other schools, the manager shall fill up the vacancy by appointing a protected teacher in the core subject from the teachers bank. Ext.P6 was issued as part of a package to approve the appointment made during the period from 2011-2012 to 2015-2016 and in that view of the matter, the order passed by the Government will be applicable to the petitioner as well. Though the vacancy had arisen for the academic year 2015-2016, the appointment was with effect from 1.6.2016.
7. I have heard Sri.M.Sajjad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
8. Having considered the submissions, I find that the specific contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P6 Government Order would not be applicable to the vacancies which were available prior to Ext.P6. The petitioner has also placed on record Exts.P8 to P11 orders issued by the Government which reveals that the stand of the Government in those orders was that for vacancies that were available prior to 2016-2017, the appo
