Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20733
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, J
K.P.KUNHI MOIDU – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
WP(C)/17876/2004
SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, SRI.C.P.SIVADASAN NAIR
The court upheld the validity of Rule 6(4) of the Kerala Education Rules, emphasizing the conditions for appointing additional teaching positions.
Headnote:
Appointment - Education - Kerala Education Rules 1949 - Rule 6(4) - The court examined the applicability of Rule 6(4) of the KER concerning teacher appointments and clarified that the introduction of a third proviso limits the sanctioning of certain posts, thereby influencing its decision to dismiss the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the rejection of approval for a teacher's appointment, asserting compliance with the Kerala Education Rules regarding the position of a Drawing Teacher.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment did not comply with Rule 6(4) due to existing staff and the specific conditions required for sanctioning additional positions.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the appointment of a Drawing Teacher was justified under the Kerala Education Rules, specifically Rule 6(4) and its third proviso.
Ratio Decidendi: The core reasoning was based on the statutory requirement that certain conditions must be met for additional appointments within the Art Group, which were not satisfied in this case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition due to non-compliance with the Kerala Education Rules.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are respectively Manager and a teacher, the latter appointed to the post of High School Assistant (Drawing) in the 1st petitioner's school. The appointment is made in the academic year 2002-03. The contention raised in the writ petition is that Rule 6(4) of Chapter XXIII of Kerala Education Rules, 1949 [for brevity “KER”] permits appointment of a Drawing Teacher and, hence, the rejection of approval based on Exhibit P11 executive order cannot be sustained.
2. The counter affidavit indicates that third proviso was introduced under Rule 6(4), which reads as under:
“Provided also that if there is already a post of Drawing Teacher under the Art Group the second post in the Art Group, namely a post of Music Teacher or a post in the Craft Group will be sanctioned only when the periods under each group exceeds 25 periods per week”.
WP(C) No.17876 of 2004 - 2 -
The above proviso has been inserted by G.O.(P) No.253/04/G.E. dated 06.08.2004 and has been made effective from 28.10.1995. Hence, Exhibit P11 executive order has been introduced in the statutory rule.
3. The teacher was appointed in a post from which a Drawing Teacher retired. But, however, the counter affidavit indicates that the school had a Drawing Teacher and a Music Teacher. When the Drawing Teacher retired, the post would stand abolished for want of periods. The Music Teacher, who had been continuing from 08.10.1980 had to be retained in the school. In such circumstances, the 2nd petitioner's appointment was not in accordance with the KER and the rejection was proper.
The writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.
