Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 43936
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
K.BENSY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/38114/2018
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER, SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS
Staff fixation orders from a prior academic year can govern approvals for educational appointments despite claims of economic inefficiency in subsequent years.
Headnote:
Employment - Educational Appointments - G.O(P) No.199/2011/G.Edn, G.O (P) No. 29/16/G.Edn - The court reviewed the applicability of staff fixation orders for appointments in educational institutions and ruled in favor of the petitioner based on established precedents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought approval for her appointment as UPSA from 17.10.2012, which was initially rejected based on claims of the school being uneconomic and the vacancy not being established. The petitioner contended that previous government orders and court judgments supported her entitlement to regular approval.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the staff fixation from 2010-11 continued to impact subsequent years. The court highlighted that the strength of 2010-11 should govern approvals for appointments made until 2016, dismissing the claim of uneconomic status for the school.
Issues: Whether the petitioner’s appointments could be approved based on the staff fixation orders despite claims that the school was uneconomic, as well as the applicability of age exemptions for regular appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that staff strength from the 2010-11 academic year was sufficient for appointment approvals up to 2016, and government orders provided valid grounds for the petitioner’s claims despite ongoing disputes about the school's economic status.
Final Decision: The petitioner's claim for regular pay approval was upheld, and directions were issued for re-evaluation of her appointment.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of January 2021
1.This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“i) call for the records relating to Exhibit P-2 and P-4 and set aside the original of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order, ii) call for the records relating to Exhibit P-7 and P-14 orders and set aside the original of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order to the extent it limits the approval of appointment of the petitioner from 17.10.2012 to 31.03.2013 and from 02.06.2013 to 31.03.2014 on daily wages and decline the approval from 01.06.2014 onwards in view of the decision in Sneha Cheriyan’s case and NSS case.
iii) declare that the appointment of the Petitioner from 17.10.2012 onwards is approvable on regular basis in view of Exhibit P-6, P-8 , P-9 and P-16 orders.
iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 5th respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner from 17.10.2012 onwards on regular basis or in the alternate;
v) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner from 17.10.2012 to 31.05.2016 on daily wages and from 01.06.2016 onwards on regular basis in view of Exhibits P-8, P-9, P-10, P-11 and P-16 orders exempting the petitioner from upper age limit as ordered in Exhibit P-12 order.”
2.Heard the the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the 6th respondent.
3.Petitioner was appointed as UPSA from 17.10.2012 to
11.06.2014 as against a long vacancy of Smt. Jessy Kuriakose who was granted LWA under Appendix XII-C from 06.06.2012 to 11.06.2014. But approval to this appointment was declined by the Assistant Educational Officer vide his order dated 13.02.2013 on the ground that “the School is uneconomic, the vacancy is not established and the appointment in an uneconomic School exceeding one year should be filled up by protected teachers as per Circular No. 4545/07/J2/G.Edn. dated 18.05.2007”. It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner was re-appointed from 12.06.2014 onwards against the termination vacancy of the same teacher as she has not joined duty after leave on 12.06.2014. The reappointment from 12.06.2014 was also rejected by the Assistant Educational Officer on the same grounds as per order dated 13.08.2014. She is continuing as such. The contention of the petitioner is that her appointments from 17.10.2012 to 31.05.2016 on daily wages and from 01.06.2016 onwards on regular basis are liable to be approved in view of Exhibits P-8, P-9, P-10, P-11 and P-16 orders exempting the petitioner from upper age limit as ordered in Exhibit P-12 order. This aspect has not been considered by the respondents.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding that the school was uneconomic and that the regular appointment could, therefore, not be approved is totally erroneous. It is submitted that there were 57 students in the school in the year 2010-11, 53 students in 2011-12 and 48 students in 2012-13. It is submitted that after the staff fixation was conducted for the year 2010-11, the exercise of staff fixation was put on hold by G.O.(P) No.199/2011/G.Edn dated 1.10.2011 and that staff fixation was thereafter conducted in all aided schools in Kerala only in April 2016. The staff fixation for the year 2010-11 was made applicable to all subsequent years till 2016-17. Several Government orders and orders of the Director General of Education have been placed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein the Government and Director General of Educational have accepted the fact that the student strength and the staff fixation for the year 2010-11 is to be taken into account for filling up vacancies for the subsequent years also and if the posts are available going by the staff fixation for the year
