Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27748
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
BLESSY K.VARGHESE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS. – Respondent
WP(C)/31891/2008
SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH, SRI.M.S.NISHAD, SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, SMT.SABINA JAYAN
Teachers appointed prior to the approval of protected teachers are entitled to approval based on earlier government orders, ensuring equitable treatment among similarly situated individuals.
Headnote:
Appointment - Education - Government Orders - Summary of relevant provisions regarding teacher approval and implications for appointments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, initially appointed as a Lower Primary School Assistant, faced cancellation of appointment approval due to non-appointment of protected teachers. Subsequent orders denied her claims for earlier approval despite other teachers receiving similar approvals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner should have been included in a government order list for approval and that the denial of approval was without valid reasoning. The prior orders extending her approval were set aside.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to approval of appointment from 02.06.2003 based on government directives and the appropriate handling of her retrenchment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the petitioner’s approval for service was wrongly canceled, as she should have been included among other similarly situated teachers eligible for appointment approval.
Final Decision: Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, approving her appointment effective from 01.02.2006.
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
2. The parties and documents have been referred to as arrayed in W.P.(C) No.31891/2008 for convenience.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant in the 4th respondent's school on 02.06.2003. Her appointment was approved. In February 2005, the approval was held in objection and the approval granted to her appointment was cancelled. Though the Manager preferred an appeal against the order cancelling the approval, no effective orders were passed. By Ext.P2 order dated 26.05.2006, the Government directed the Assistant Educational Officer, Kayamkulam to W.P.(C) No.31891/2008 & conn. cases 2 dispose of the petitioner's case in the light of Ext.P3 Government Order dated 01.02.2006. Ext.P3 Government Order inter alia provided that approval would be granted to 402 teachers in newly opened schools whose appointments had not been approved due to the reason that protected teachers had not been appointed in the said schools. However, it is stated in Ext.P4 order of the Assistant Educational Officer that the petitioner's name was not included in the list appended to Ext.P3 Government Order. The Government therefore was requested to clarify whether the petitioner's appointment could be approved with effect from 01.02.2006.
4. When no orders were passed thereon, the petitioner approached this Court and the Government was directed to take up the proforma forwarded by the Assistant Educational Officer and to take a fresh decision in view of the Government Orders. However, by Ext.P7 order dated 23.04.2007, based on a report by the Deputy Director of Education, the Government rejected W.P.(C) No.31891/2008 & conn. cases 3 the request of the petitioner for approval. Thereafter, on a review submitted by the Manager, Ext.P8 order dated 13.10.2008 was issued wherein it was found that the Manager had appointed a protected teacher in the school on 01.11.2007 and therefore the petitioner's appointment was liable to the approved with effect from 01.11.2007.
5. The petitioner challenges Exts.P7 and P8 and seeks directions to approve her appointment with effect from 02.06.2003. Reliance is placed on Ext.P9 order dated 26.08.2006 by which similarly situated teacher was granted approval with effect from the date of appointment.
6. W.P.(C) No.36459/2009 is filed challenging the retrenchment of the petitioner on account of division fall in the academic year 2009-2010. It is contended that since the petitioner was entitled to approval of appointment at least with effect from 01.02.2006, going by Ext.P3 order, she would not be the junior most teacher and would not be liable to be retrenched.
W.P.(C) No.31891/2008 & conn. cases 4 It is further stated that even in case the petitioner was treated as junior most teacher, a protected teacher who had been appointed on 01.11.2007 had been redeployed to the parent school and therefore there was a vacancy to accommodate the petitioner in the academic year 2009-2010. This aspect had not been considered by the educational authorities, it is submitted.
7. In W.P.(C) No.37578/2009, the Manager challenges Ext.P7 proceedings issued on the strength of Government Orders dated 23.04.2007 and 13.10.2008 for recovering the salary paid to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31891/2008 from 02.06.2003.
8. I have considered the contentions advanced by the counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the Government Pleader.
9. It is the specific contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31891/2008 that the petitioner's name was liable to be included in the list appended to Ext.P3 Government Order since approval for his appointment had been W.P.(C) No.31891/2008 & conn. cases 5 recalled on the sole ground that protected teachers had not been appointed in newly opened school. Though counter affidavits have been filed in the writ petitions, I find that no reason whatsoever is stated by the respondents fo
