Succeeding managers not liable for previous manager's faults under Rule 7 Chapter III KER; recovery from specific erring manager only.

JUDGMENT

[WP(C) No.20042/2023, RP No. 566/2020]

This writ petition and the review petition are connected. The issue arising for consideration in these cases is as regards the liability of the succeeding Manager of an educational institution for the fault of the previous Manager.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27778 of 2010 sought an appointment to the post of HSA (Hindi) in the school managed by the 4^th respondent in that writ petition with effect from 5.6.2000 onwards. However, the 4^th respondent in the writ petition refused to grant the appointment as above. The issue was raised before this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition. By the judgment dated 28.2.2017, the learned Single Judge of this Court considered the issue in extenso and ultimately found as under:

“19. Indisputably, the situation faced by Ananthakumari has been brought about by the manager, who refused to obey the letter of law. Had he honoured the statutory stipulation, Ananthakumari would have been working from 5.6.2000. But that was not to be. I may hasten to add that in these circumstances, the Government is not remediless. It can as well proceed against the erring manager. For this purpose, there are remedial regulations. Granted that the Government has to pay from public exchequer, it can recover every paise from the Manager, on whose account this contingency has arisen.”

(underline supplied)

3. Even on the face of the afore finding, in the concluding portion, this Court made the following observations:

“20. In the facts and circumstances, this Court declares that Ananthakumari's appointment shall be reckoned from 5.6.2000, and the Government should extend to her the monetary benefits from that date. It may initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the manager and recover the amounts it thus pays to Ananthakumari. No order on costs. Needless to observe that because Ananthakumari retired on 31.3.2012, and because the writ petition has been pending since 2000, the Government will reckon Ananthakumari's retrospective monetary benefits and pay them expeditiously, at any rate, within three months from receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

(underline supplied)

4. R.P No.566 of 2020 is instituted by the Manager of the school in question who held the office from 5.5.2017 till 4.5.2020, contending that on the basis of the afore judgment, steps are being taken for realising the amounts paid to the petitioner in the writ petition from the present Manager.

5. W.P.(C) No.20042 of 2023 has been filed by the Manager of the school from 8.8.2021 onwards, seeking to challenge Exts.P10 and P11 letters issued by the Government and the DEO directing the petitioner therein to remit the amounts demanded by the afore notices.

6. I have heard Smt. Jenzia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. K.R. Dinesh for the 1^st respondent in Review Petition, as well as Smt. S.L. Sylaja, the learned Government Pleader.

7. The short issue arising for consideration in these cases is whether, on the basis of the directions contained in paragraph 19 of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.27778 of 2010, steps for realisation could be taken against the subsequent Managers.

8. The issue arises for consideration with reference to the provisions ofRule 3 Chapter III,KER. The recovery proceedings against the Manager who has been appointed under Rule 3 have been specifically provided under Rule 7 of Chapter III. With respect to an identical situation, Division Bench of this Court inW.A No.1477 of 2015, produced as Annexure V in the Review Petition, by a judgment dated 20.12.2016 has held as under:

“2. In this appeal, the contention raised by the appellant, the affected teache