The court affirmed the necessity of reinstating a teacher dismissed due to conviction, emphasizing compliance with judicial directives regarding supernumerary posts and the authority of educational administrators.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The 5^th respondent in W.P.(C)No.18201 of 2022 filed W.A.No.2380 of 2025 and the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12745 of 2021 filed W.A.No.2381 of 2025, under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the common judgment dated 18.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in those writ petitions. Since the issue involved in these writ appeals is the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience of reference, the parties and documents in these writ appeals are referred to as in W.A.No.2381 of 2025 and in the corresponding writ petition, unless otherwise stated.

2. The facts which led to the filing of these writ appeals are as under;

2.1. The appellant joined Sree Narayana Teachers Training Institute, Cheruthuruthy (the ‘School’ in short) as a Training School Assistant on 04.06.1990. Since she was convicted in a criminal case, the Manager of the School dismissed the appellant from service in terms of Rule 74 of Chapter XIV-A of KER 17650826647ce49c'> Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (the ‘ ’ in short). Subsequently, the order of conviction of the appellant was set aside by this Court. Hence, the Deputy Director of Education passed an order directing the Manager to reinstate the appellant in service. When the Manager delayed taking action, stating that the Deputy Director of Education is not a competent authority to order reinstatement of the appellant, she approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.8640 of 2008. The Manager also approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.28764 of 2009, challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Education, contending that the vacancy was already filled up and hence the appellant cannot be accommodated. By Ext.P1 judgment dated 20.10.2017, this Court disposed of both the writ petitions, observing that since the Manager had made two appointments, the order of the Deputy Director of Education to reinstate the appellant could be implemented only by creating a supernumerary post. Ext.P1 judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment dated 06.02.2020, passed in W.A.Nos.1362 and 1068 of 2018 .

2.2. Since no steps have been taken by the authorities to reinstate her, the appellant filed Con.Case(C)No.1312 of 2020 before this Court. The said contempt case was finally closed as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 24.11.2020. Thereafter, Ext.P4 order dated 09.11.2020 was issued by the Secretary, General Education Department, directing the Director, General Education, to initiate steps to appoint the appellant by creating a supernumerary post. In Ext.P4, there was a further direction to make good the resultant financial liability caused by the creation of the supernumerary post, by proportionately realising the costs from the Manager and the officers who approved the appointments of one Unni K. P. and another person, who was appointed in the vacancy of Unni K. P., ignoring the claim of the appellant.

2.3. On the basis of Ext.P4 order, the Director, General Education issued Ext.P5 order dated 01.03.2021 directing the District Educational Officer, Chavakkad, reiterating the order of the Educational Secretary to take immediate steps to create a supernumerary post of Training School Assistant for reinstating the appellant from 2000-01. Pursuant to Ext.P5 order, the District Educational Officer issued Ext.P6 order dated 02.03.2021, creating a supernumerary post to retain the appellant in the ser