Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 40776
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
RAJANI K.U – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/960/2018
SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J., SRI.T.G.SUNIL, SRI.K.R.GANESH, SMT.NISHA BOSE, DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM), SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN, SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR, SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN, SRI.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD, SRI.SABU PULLAN
The validity of a teacher's appointment hinges on the approval status of the school manager at the time of appointment, regardless of subsequent managerial disputes.
Headnote:
Appointment - Education - KER Chapter III, Rule 4(2)(a), Chapter XIVA Rule 9 - The court upheld the legality of the petitioner's appointment, emphasizing the necessity of approval from educational authorities and the validity of the manager's actions under applicable rules.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two writ petitions concerning the approval of an appointment of a teacher in an aided school. One petitioner sought to mandate salary disbursement while the other challenged the appointment based on managerial election issues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the original manager had proper authority to appoint the petitioner, and that the necessary procedural requirements had been met, making the appointment valid despite challenges regarding managerial elections.
Issues: Whether the appointment of the petitioner was valid under the existing legal provisions and managerial authority, considering the circumstances surrounding the manager's election.
Ratio Decidendi: A manager approved at the time of an appointment has the authority to make said appointment, and procedural defects in approval submissions do not invalidate the original appointment if remedied properly.
Final Decision: The petitioner's appointment is upheld, allowing her to continue in service and receive due remuneration.
JUDGMENT
1.These writ petitions relate to approval appointment of the HSST (Economics) in an aided Higher Secondary School. It is contended that the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.960 of 2018 was appointed as HSST (Political Science) in pursuance to a notification issued by the Manager. W.P.(C).No.960 of 2018 is filed seeking directions to allow the petitioner to discharge her duties and to take steps for disbursal of salary due to her. W.P. (C).No.4830 of 2018 is filed by Sri.C.P.Kishore, as Manager of the school, seeking consideration of his appeal preferred against the approval of appointment of the petitioner in W.P.
(C).No.960 of 2018.
2. It is contended by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.960 of 2018 that by Exhibit P1, the Government nominee was deputed for the constitution of the Selection Committee. An interview was held on 30.08.2017. Exhibit P3 is the mark list. Petitioner, who was ranked No.1 in Exhibit P4 rank list, was appointed on
11.09.2017. It is contended that one C.P.Anil Kumar, who appointed the petitioner, was approved as Manager of the school for 3 years w.e.f. 18.09.2016 or till fresh elections are conducted by Exhibit P7 order dated 26.11.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner's appointment was approved by Exhibit P8 order w.e.f. 11.09.2017.
3.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a general body conducted in the SDPY Yogam which is the educational agency in respect of the school on 08.10.2017. But no election to the post of the Manager was conducted in the general body. The Manager who appointed the petitioner had been removed from the post only on 12.01.2017. It is, therefore, contended that the appointment and the approval made thereto is perfectly in order and the refusal on the part of the respondents to forward the salary bill of the petitioner and to draw and disburse the salary is completely illegal.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent contending that a general body was held on 08.10.2017 and election of office bearers of the Samithy except Manager was conducted and the newly elected committee took charge on 22.10.2017. It is contended that the previous Manager, Sri. C.P.Anilkumar did not attend the office from 08.10.2017 onwards. It is stated that a show-cause notice was issued to the previous Manager, Sri. C.P. Anilkumar on 24.10.2017 and President of the Samithy assumed the office of the Manager in the absence of the approved Manager. The proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner was returned for re- transmission after rectifying defects by the 4th respondent by communication dated 24.10.2017. It is stated that the appointment order was not re-transmitted after rectifying the defects and therefore the approval granted thereafter was untenable.
5. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in W.P.
(C).No.960 of 2018 producing an order dated 13.11.2017 stating that the Manager who appointed the petitioner, Sri.C.P.Anilkumar, was removed only in pursuance to a General Body held on 12.11.2017. Ext.P10 order of the Sub Court, Kochi in I.A.No.760 of 2017 in A.S.No.67 of 2016 is also produced to contend that there was no election to the post of Manager on 8.10.2017. Ext.R4(a) document produced by the 4th respondent in the said writ petition is also relied on to contend that the Civil Court had specifically considered the issue and had found that the Manager who had appointed the petitioner had been removed from the post of Manager only by the resolution passed by the 1st respondent Society on
12.11.2017.
6. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment had been returned to the Manager on 24.10.2017 to cure the defects. It is submitted that the defects were cured and the proposal with the appointment order has been presented on 26.10.2017 and it is on that basis that the order of approval had been rendered. It is further contended that there was no contention as against th
