Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 47225
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, C.S. Sudha, JJ
THE MANAGER (PAUL CHACKO V.) – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WA/1081/2022
V.A.MUHAMMED, GEORGE MATHEW, M.D.SASIKUMARAN, ELSA DENNY PINDIS, SUNIL KUMAR, A.G GEORGE, K.V. MATHEW, K.T.STEPHY, K REGI, SRI.A.J.VARGHESE
Eligibility for educational employment is determined by the date of publication of examination results, validating subsequent appointments even if results were communicated earlier.
Headnote:
Eligibility - Employment - Kerala Education Rules, Chapter XIV A, Rule 63; Kerala Service Rules, Part I, Rule 60(c) - The court held that the vacancy for the Physical Education Teacher arose on 01.06.2018, confirming that the petitioner lacked the necessary qualifications prior to this date, thus validating the Manager's appointment of the eighth respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Full-Time Menial at an aided school, pursued a degree in Physical Education while on leave. Despite passing a supplementary exam in May 2017, the result was published in July 2018, after a vacancy for a Physical Education Teacher arose due to retirement in June 2018.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the vacancy arose on 01.06.2018 and the petitioner did not possess requisite qualifications at that time, as his results were published only later. Consequently, the appointment of the eighth respondent was upheld.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was eligible for the appointment of Physical Education Teacher when the vacancy arose, taking into account the date of qualification relative to the vacancy date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that eligibility for appointment is determined by the date of publication of examination results, not merely by their communication to the District Educational Officer. Thus, the vacancy date was confirmed as critical.
Final Decision: The writ appeals were allowed, dismissing the petitioner's claims and validating the appointment of the eighth respondent.
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
The above appeals arise from the common judgment dated 13.06.2022 in two writ petitions namely, W.P. (C) Nos.2896 of 2021 and 3353 of 2022. As the writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment, these appeals are also disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.2896 of 2021.
2. The petitioner was working as a Full-Time Menial in the fifth respondent, an aided school (the School). He took leave for the period from 10.07.2013 to 31.10.2016 and underwent a bachelors degree course in Physical Education in a college affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University (the University). Even though he completed the course during the leave period, he could not secure a pass in all the subjects. He therefore re-joined the School and wrote the failed subject in the supplementary examination held by the University during May 2017. The result of the said supplementary examination was published by the University on 05.07.2018. The petitioner cleared the failed subject in the said examination. In the meanwhile, in the academic year 2017-18, one Denny Job, who was working as Physical Education Teacher in the School retired on superannuation and consequently, a vacancy of Physical Education Teacher arose in the school. In the said vacancy, the Manager of the School appointed the eighth respondent on 01.06.2018.
3. According to the petitioner, since he has completed the degree course in Physical Education in the examination held during May 2017, notwithstanding the fact that the result of the said examination was published only in the month of July 2018, he should have been appointed as Physical Education Teacher in the School in the vacancy referred to above. It is also his case that the Physical Education Teacher in the School had attained the age of superannuation only in the month of June 2018; that he was therefore entitled to continue as teacher in the School till 30.06.2018; that the vacancy of the Physical Education Teacher in the School, in the circumstances, can be said to have arisen only on 01.07.2018; that the result of the examination undertaken by the petitioner has been confidentially communicated by the University to the concerned District Educational Officer on a request made by the petitioner much before 01.07.2018 and that therefore, at any rate, he should have been appointed in the place of the eighth respondent.
4. The petitioner though preferred a representation in the circumstances, before the Manager seeking appointment, the same was rejected. The said decision of the Manager was however reversed by the District Educational Officer in terms of Ext.P16 order, holding that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed in the vacancy which arose on account of the retirement of Denny Job. The Manager though challenged Ext.P16 order in appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, the same was rejected. Ext.P17 is the order issued by the Deputy Director in this regard. The decision of the Deputy Director was impugned by the Manager in revision before the Director of General Education. Ext.P18 is the order passed by the Director of General Education in the said revision. In Ext.P18 order, although it was held by the Director of General Education that the petitioner could not establish that he acquired the required qualification as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy namely, 1.6.2018, the revision was disposed of directing the Deputy Director to ascertain, after contacting the University, as to whether the petitioner has acquired the qualification before the occurrence of the vacancy, and directing further that if it is found in the affirmative, steps shall be taken to ensure that the petitioner is appointed in the said vacancy. Pursuant to Ext.P18, on the basis of a clarification issued by the University, the Deputy Director found that the petitioner has acquired the qualification before the occurrence of the vacancy and c
