Back
2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11039
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
MADHU.K.JAMES – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/2715/2010
SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM), SMT.ASHA CHACKO
The court established that claims under Rule 51A must be recognized regardless of appointment status if applicable, allowing for a reconsideration of rights.
Headnote:
Employment - Teacher's Appointment - KER Chapter XIVA - Sections 51A, 43 - The court examined the applicability of specific government orders on teacher appointments, ruling that prior claims must be reconsidered under established rules for remuneration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner worked as a Higher Secondary School Teacher at a school, claiming unpaid salary for a specific period and asserting that a relevant government circular applied to him and similarly situated individuals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the petitioner was appointed as a 'guest teacher', he had legitimate claims under established rules not considered by the authorities and directed that his grievances be reconsidered.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of government circulars regarding appointments and remuneration as a Higher Secondary School Teacher.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that prior claims under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA KER must be recognized, and government clarifications on appointment applicability to Higher Secondary Schools require reconsideration.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, quashing the prior decision and directing reconsideration of the petitioner's claims.
J U D G M E N T
----------------------
The petitioner is seeking relief to quash Ext.P8 and also for a direction to pay salary for the period during which he worked in the 6th respondent's school, at the pay scale of Rs.11070- 18450/-, for the period from 2.6.2008 to 19.10.2008. Inter alia the petitioner is seeking a declaration to the effect that Ext.P5 circular is applicable to the petitioner and to similarly situated persons.
2. Brief facts of the case is that, the petitioner had worked as a Higher Secondary School Teacher in Sociology at the 6th respondent's school on 3 distinct spell on appointment against leave vacancies, from 11.6.2004 to 31.3.2005, from 2.6.2008 to 19.10.2008 and from 18.6.2010 to 14.12.2010. Regarding the first spell of appointment made by virtue of Ext.P1, approval was granted as per Ext.P2. Appointment during the second spell was by virtue of Ext.P3. The dispute in this writ petition mainly pertains to salary paid to the petitioner for the period of her second spell of appointment. It is evident from Ext.P3 that the appointment was as Guest Teacher on W.P.(C).2715/10-L -2-
remuneration of Rs.100/- per hour of teaching. Petitioner conceded that as per Ext.P4 circular the remuneration fixed for appointment of Higher Secondary Teachers in short term vacancies is Rs.100/- per hour subject to a maximum of Rs.6,000/- in a month.
3. Petitioner points out that, by virtue of Ext.P5 it was clarified that Government Order, G.O.No.169/04/GE dt.15.6.2004, through which it was decided to limit the claim for reappointment under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA KER, is applicable only with respect to appointments against regular/leave vacancies having duration of less than one year, and is not applicable to the appointments made under Rule 43 of Chapter XIVA or for reappointment of those persons who already acquired claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA KER, if such reappointment is for more than two months. According to the petitioners the clarification given under Ext.P5 as stated above would have been made applicable to similarly situated persons in the Higher Secondary Schools also. Therefore he submitted Ext.P6 representation before the 2nd respondent requesting to approve his second spell of appointment as an appointment made on the basis of Rule 51A claim and to declare that the Government Order permitting filling up of vacancies in the W.P.(C).2715/10-L -3-
Higher Secondary Schools as 'guest teachers' will not be applicable with respect to persons who got reappointment on the basis of claim under Rule 51A.
4. It is evident that Ext.P6 representation was forwarded by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent seeking clarification. But in Ext.P8 the 1st respondent made it clear that the exemption given to claimants under Rule 43 or Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA KER is applicable only upto High School Level and the procedure therein could not be made applicable in the case of the petitioner who is appointed in the Higher Secondary Schools.
5. Learned counsel Sri.P.C.Chacko appearing for petitioner pointed out that Ext.P8 reply is given without considering the real grievance expressed through Ext.P6. The request made under Ext.P6 for extending the benefit of Ext.P5 to Higher Secondary School section, was also not considered. It is further contended that the impugned decision has resulted in discriminating similarly situated persons. He points out Ext.P8 judgment of a Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.140/2007 dt.84/2009, wherein this court held that Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA KER is applicable to Higher Secondary Schools. Further, in view of a recent decision it was held that the amendment W.P.(C).2715/10-L -4-
brought into Rule 51A will not affect the claims acquired under the unamended rules stood before the date of amendment, 25.6.2005.
6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of 1st respondent it is specifically contended that the appointment of the petitioner for the period from 2.6.2008 to 19.10.2008 was against a mate
