Back
2008 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38194
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
J.B.KOSHY, K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ
THE MANAGER, S.V.M.M.HIGH SCHOOL – Appellant
Versus
N.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR – Respondent
WA/509/2008
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SRI.P.ALI FOR R1, SRI.BENNY GERVACIS R2-R4
The Manager must adhere to government regulations in teacher appointments, and wrongful denial of salary can mandate recovery from the Manager for lost benefits.
Headnote:
Employment - Educational Appointment - [KER, Chapter III, Rule 7(4)] - The court interpreted provisions allowing recovery of losses from the Manager for denial of due salary to the teacher and established the necessity of adherence to government direction in appointment processes.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an appointment dispute for the Headmaster position at an Aided School after the retirement of the previous Headmaster. The Manager appointed a new Headmistress, which led to a writ petition from a qualified teacher who claimed entitlement to the position and salary from 1993.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Manager denied the teacher appointment due to a misunderstanding of eligibility. While the Manager had discretion, the court ruled that the teacher was entitled to a notional promotion with benefits but only received salary from the court's directive date.
Issues: Whether the Manager acted illegally in appointing the Headmistress and if the first respondent was entitled to receive salary from 1.4.1993 onwards.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Manager misinterpreted eligibility rules leading to the wrongful denial of the teacher's appointment, which warranted notional promotion but limited back salary.
Final Decision: The appeal is partially allowed; the petitioner entitled to salary from 23.8.2000.
JUDGMENT
Koshy, J.
The appellant is the Manager of an Aided School. A vacancy of Headmaster arose on 1.4.1993 consequent on retirement of the then Headmaster. The post of Headmaster was not filled up and a request was made to give extension to the retired Headmaster. While the said request was pending, the senior most teacher was given charge as Headmistress pending decision of the Government. That request was declined by the Government on 12.4.1994. The Manager appointed one Meenakshi Amma as the Headmistress. According to the Manager, she was the senior most qualified claimant to that post. The writ petitioner, the first respondent in the writ appeal questioned the appointment of above Meenakshi Amma as Headmistress and according to him, he ought to have been appointed in that WA 509/08 2 retiral vacancy that arose on 1.4.1993. Even though his claim was accepted by the educational authorities, by Exhibit P4, Government directed to approve the appointment of Meenakshi Amma as the Headmistress of the School and Meenakshi Amma's appointment was approved as per Exhibit P5. Thereafter, the writ petitioner challenged Exhibit P4, which resulted in Exhibit P6 Judgment dated 23.8.2000. The dispute arose because the Manager was under the impression that a Language teacher cannot be appointed as the Headmaster and the writ petitioner was a Language teacher, even though he was a graduate teacher. The learned single Judge, by judgment dated 23.8.2000, held that the writ petitioner was qualified to be appointed as Headmaster in the vacancy which arose on 1.4.1993. Since appointment of the petitioner was delayed Rs.10,000/- was also granted as cost while disposing of the writ petition. The fourth respondent approached the Honourable Supreme Court WA 509/08 3 filing SLP. By Exhibit P13 order dated 2.8.2002 SLP was disposed of with the following directions:
“It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that Respondent No.5 has since retired, therefore, the cause of action does not survive. Hence, SLPs have become infructuous. However, we make it clear that in future, the appointment will be made in accordance with the Rules. The special leave petitions are disposed of.”
2. Meenakshi Amma retired from service on
31.5.2002. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was appointed on 19.10.2002. On retirement of Meenakshi Amma, in between, another teacher was appointed as the Headmistress. According to the Manager, on the basis of the directions of this Court only another teacher was appointed whose appointment was also approved. The petitioner filed the present writ WA 509/08 4 petition contending that he is entitled to get salary with effect from 1.4.1993. His claim for salary was declined by the DEO by Exhibit P19 order and that was challenged before this Court and the learned single Judge directed to pay salary to the petitioner from 1.4.1993 onwards and directed the Government to recover the amount from the Manager in view of Chapter III Rule 7(4) KER . As per the above Rule, in case the Manager commits serious irregularities causing monetary loss to the teachers/Government, the loss sustained to the teachers/Government should be recovered from the Manager under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act as if it is an arrear of public revenue due on land. In various decisions of this Court right of the Government to recover such loss and entitlement of salary to the teachers who were illegally denied appointment were reiterated. Those decisions were also quoted in the impugned judgment.
WA 509/08 5
3. The question is whether any patent illegality was committed by the Manager and whether the first respondent is entitled to get salary from 1.4.1993 onwards. Proceedings and various writ petitions filed show that the appellant Manager was contesting the right of the first respondent to become a Headmaster bona fidely as he was under the impression that he cannot be appointed as Headmaster being a Language teacher. In any event, in view of
