Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13573
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
NITHA JOSE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/19568/2018
Sri.V.A.Muhammed, Sri.M.Sajjaj, Dr.George Abraham, Sri.U.Balagangadharan, Sri.P.M.Manoj, Sr.GP, Sri.Mathewn Kuriakose
Eligibility for appointment to educational positions under the Kerala Education Rules is determined by the initial date of appointment, not the date of approval.
Headnote:
Appointment - High School Teacher - Kerala Education Rules 1959 Section 51A - The court addressed the eligibility of teachers based on their initial appointment dates under the Kerala Education Rules, determining that candidates without approved appointments could still be considered for vacancies that arose thereafter.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves two petitions concerning the appointment of a High School Teacher in a school where one teacher was appointed, while others claimed entitlement based on earlier unapproved appointments during a ban on hiring.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the teachers involved had rights to be considered for appointment based on their original dates of appointment, notwithstanding the lack of approval for those appointments at the time.
Issues: The main issue was whether petitioners with earlier unapproved appointments had preferential rights for a teaching vacancy compared to a teacher appointed subsequently.
Ratio Decidendi: The decision emphasized the relevance of the initial appointment date over approval status in determining eligibility under the Kerala Education Rules.
Final Decision: Both writ petitions were ordered with directions for reconsideration by educational authorities.
JUDGMENT
[ WP(C).19568/2018, WP(C).28245/2018 ]
Dated this the 12th day of January 2021 The singular question in these two cases -
which are being considered together on account of similarity in the factual circumstances pleaded and reliefs sought for - is, who among the petitioners are entitled to be appointed to the vacancy of High School Teacher (HST) in HS Thiruvalayannur, Thrissur, that arose on
01.06.2015.
2. While the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.28245 of 2018 - Smt.Manju George K. has been appointed to the afore said vacancy; the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.19568 of 2018 - Smt.Nitha Jose, Smt.S.A.Srija and Smt.P.Rajana Anto - stake claim to it, asserting that they had been earlier appointed in the School in the year 2007, much before Smt.Manju George K. had been so appointed, though admitting that none of such appointments had obtained approval from the Competent Educational Authorities.
3. Smt.Manju George, in W.P.(C) No.28245 of 2018, seeks that the Educational Authorities be directed to grant her approval with effect from 01.06.2015; while Smt.Nitha Jose and the others impugn Ext.P7 in W.P.(C) No.19568 of 2018, whereby, the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur, has ordered approval to Smt.Manju George, provided there are no other legal impediments in doing so.
4. Smt.P.A.Jenzia - learned counsel appearing for Smt.Nitha Jose and two others, asserted that her clients have been appointed by the Manager of the School in the year 2007, but that these appointments were not granted approval by the Competent Educational Authorities, citing the reason that there was a ban ordered by the Government in making appointments at the relevant time. She contends that, therefore, when a vacancy arose in the School in the year 2015, her clients were entitled to be considered for appointment by the Manager in preference to Smt.Manju George K., whose initial tenure in the School concededly began only in the year 2008, which was also, however, not approved for the same reason as afore. Smt.P.A.Jenziya, therefore, prays that Ext.P7 in W.P.(C)No. 19568 of 2018 be set aside and the Educational Authorities be directed to consider granting approval to her clients to the vacancy in question.
5. Contrary to this, Sri.
U.Balagangadharan, learned counsel appearing for Smt.Manju George K, predicated that Smt.Nitha Jose and other teachers cannot claim any preferential rights for being appointed to the vacancy that arose in the year 2015, because none of them can be construed to be claimants under Rule 51A Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules , 1959(hereinafter referred to as 'the KER '). He submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P5, his client was offered appointment by the Manager because Smt.Nitha Jose and other two teachers did not appear before him for being considered for selection, when it was conducted in that year. He further submitted that it is only consequent to this that Ext.P2 appointment order was issued to his client and, therefore, that the Educational Authorities are bound to approve the same; and thus prayed that Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.28245 of 2018 (which is the same as Ext.P7 in W.P.(C)No.19568 of 2018) be directed to be implemented by the Officer concerned.
6. Sri.U.Balagangadharan added to the above submissions by saying that Smt.Nitha Jose and two teachers cannot, in any event, obtain any right to stake claim over his client because their subsequent appointments in the year 2016 have been rejected through Exts.P9, P10 and P11 orders produced in W.P.(C)No.28245 of 2018; and that since these orders have not been challenged by Smt.Nitha Jose and two others, their contentions impelled in W.P.(C) No.19568 of 2018 would have no legs to stand on. He concluded his submissions by taking me through Ext.P17, in W.P.(C)No.28245 of 2018, wherein, the Additional Director of General Education has recorded that on account of the pendency of these writ petitions approval of his client's appointment cannot be considered and therefore, prayed that sai
