Back
2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38123
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.T.SANKARAN, J
SHIBU.K.G. – Appellant
Versus
THE A.E.O., KANJIRAPPILLY – Respondent
WP(C)/2336/2009
SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SRI.T.R.SADEESAN, SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH
Government directives concerning educational appointments must be prioritized over specific directives from educational authorities.
Headnote:
Employment - Educational Appointments - G.O.(MS)43/78/G.Edn., G.O.(MS) No.371/2000/G.Edn. - The court directed the Director of Public Instruction to expedite the consideration of revisions against orders that objected to full-time Sanskrit teacher posts, emphasizing adherence to superior government orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed as full-time Sanskrit teachers. Subsequent objections were raised regarding these appointments, leading to revisions filed by the school Manager against the Assistant Educational Officer's orders.
Issues: Whether the Assistant Educational Officer's objection to the petitioners' positions is valid in light of existing government orders.
Ratio Decidendi: Government orders take precedence over individual directives from education authorities when addressing objections to sanctioned full-time posts.
Final Decision: The court directed the Director of Public Instruction to resolve the pending revisions within two months while keeping the objection orders in abeyance.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners were appointed as Sanskrit teachers, the first petitioner in DAM U.P. School, Muttappally, Kanjirappilly, Kottayam and the second petitioner in A.U.P.School, Nallalam, Kozhikode, with effect from 1.3.2005 and 4.6.2007 respectively. It is stated that these appointments were towards full time retirement vacancies. The appointments of the petitioners were approved.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that after several years, the Assistant Educational Officer concerned passed Exts.P3 and P4 orders stating that the Full Time Sanskrit Teacher post sanctioned under Group 'C' diversion is objected. Challenging Ext.P3 objection, relating to the first petitioner, the Manager filed Ext.P9 Revision before the Director of Public Instruction. Similarly, in respect of the second petitioner, objecting to Ext.P4, the Manager filed Ext.P8 Revision before the Director of Public Instruction. Exts.P8 and P9 are pending WPC No.2336/2009 2 disposal.
3. The petitioners relied on Exts.P5 and P6 Government Orders (G.O.(MS)43/78/G.Edn. dated 13.4.1978 and G.O.(MS) No.371/2000/G.Edn. dated 13.11.2000 respectively). In Ext.P6, the Government have clarified that the posts created by virtue of Group 'C' diversion cannot be treated as protected and that such full time posts cannot be converted into part time posts. It is pointed out that Exts.P3 and P4 were passed not on the basis of the Government Orders , but, on the basis of an order passed by the Director of Public Instruction in a particular case. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order in a particular case passed by the Director of Public Instruction should give way to the Government Orders in force. These points have been highlighted by the respective Managers in Exts.P8 and P9 Revisions.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Director of Public Instruction to dispose of Exts.P8 and P9 revisions, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an WPC No.2336/2009 3 opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the Director of Public Instruction. Till the disposal of Exts.P8 and P9, the operation and implementation of Exts.P3 and P4 shall be kept in abeyance.
K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE
