Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J
V.A.SAKEENA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 15452/2014
Employment - Appointment of H.S.A. (Malayalam) - Kerala Education Rules - Article 14
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, appointed as H.S.A. (Malayalam), faced non-approval of her appointment due to insufficient qualifications which were initially overlooked. She contested the denial of salary and sought approval from the original appointment date, arguing valid qualifications were achieved afterwards.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the lapse in the approval process but emphasized that qualifications must align with the Kerala Education Rules and ruled the initial appointment invalid as the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications at the time of her appointment.
Issues: Whether the appointment of the petitioner can be validated despite the lack of qualifications at the time of her initial appointment and the validity of subsequent salary denials.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the necessity of adhering to qualifications as prescribed, stating that an inchoate appointment without approval does not confer legitimate rights, and the government can rectify earlier mistakes in the validity of appointments.
Final Decision: The appointment of the petitioner was affirmed from the date schools reopened in the academic year 2013-14, with prior salary not to be recovered.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was appointed as H.S.A. (Malayalam) by the fifth respondent Manager by Ext.P1 appointment order dated 18.6.2004 in M.E.S. Higher Secondary School, Sreenarayanapuram, against an additional division vacancy sanctioned for the academic year 2004- 2005. At the time of appointment, the petitioner possessed a B.A. degree in Economics and a B.Ed. degree in Malayalam awarded by the University of Calicut. The District Educational Officer, Irinjalakkuda declined to approve the said appointment on the ground that the vacancy should have been filled up by appointing a protected teacher. The appeal filed by the Manager before the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur was rejected. The revision petition filed by the Manager before the Director of Public Instruction was also rejected by order passed on 23.2.2008. The Manager as well as the petitioner thereupon filed revision petitions before the Government.
2. The petitioner, and another teacher whose appointment as HSA (Malayalam) in the very same school with effect from 25.7.2005 had not been approved, thereafter filed W.P.(C)No.1666 of 2009 in this Court wherein they challenged the orders passed by the authorities declining to approve their appointments and also sought a direction to the State of Kerala to consider and pass orders on the revision petitions filed by them. A learned single Judge of this Court disposed of W.P.(C) No.1666 of 2009 by judgment delivered on 15.1.2009 with a direction to the State of Kerala to consider and pass orders on the revision petitions filed by the Manager/teachers, in a time bound manner. Pursuant thereto, the Government heard the parties and issued G.O.(MS)No.249/09/G.Edn. dated 17.12.2009. By that order, the Government directed the District Educational Officer, Irinjalakkuda to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 1.2.2006, if the appointment is otherwise in order. Thereupon, by order passed on 12.3.2010, the District Educational Officer, Irinjalakkuda, approved the petitioner's appointment as H.S.A. (Malayalam) with effect from 1.2.2006.
3. Two days thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation dated 15.3.2010 before the Honourable Minister for Education requesting him to grant approval with effect from 18.6.2004, the date of the appointment order. While that representation was pending, the P.A. to District Educational Officer, Irinjalakkuda objected to payment of salary and allowances to the petitioner on the ground that she is not qualified to be appointed as H.S.A. (Malayalam). He also withheld payment of salary and allowances to the petitioner with effect from August 2011. The objection raised by him was communicated to the Headmaster of the school by Ext.P3 endorsement on the petitioner's salary bill for the month of August 2011. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation dated 5.9.2011 before the Secretary to Government through the District Educational Officer who forwarded it to the Government along with Ext.P4 letter dated 22.9.2011. By Ext.P5 letter dated 20.9.2012, the Government informed the District Educational Officer/Director of Public Instruction that having regard to the terms of G.O.(P)No.165/08/G.Edn. dated 19.9.2008, the petitioner is eligible to be appointed as H.S.A. (Malayalam). The Government also directed the District Educational Officer to lift the objection raised by him for payment of salary and allowances to the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur thereupon sought a clarification from the Government and the Government in turn sent Ext.P6 letter dated 31.5.2014 wherein it took the stand that the appointment of the petitioner is irregular. The Government accordingly cancelled Ext.P5. Ext.P3 endorsement on the petitioner's salary bill for August 2011 and Ext.P6 letter are under challenge in this writ petition wherein the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
1. A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order calling for the reco
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
