Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7794
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J
REKHA SHRIPRABHA – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 7168/2011
Priority must be given to protected teachers over Rule 51A claimants under KER Rule 51A during appointments.
Headnote:
Education - Appointment of Teachers - KER Rule 51A - Summary: The court addressed the implications of KER Rule 51A regarding the appointment of protected teachers and the ordering of vacancies. It emphasized that protected teachers should be prioritized over Rule 51A claimants when filling teaching positions, reinforcing a clear interpretation of state educational regulations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a protected teacher, sought absorption into a vacant HSA (Physical Science) post in their parent school after being deployed. Their claim was rejected in favor of a Rule 51A claimant, leading to a legal challenge against the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found shortcomings in the earlier decision which ignored key provisions of KER Rule 51A that prioritize protected teachers in appointments. It identified a need for the first respondent to reassess the vacancy claims accurately.
Issues: The key issues included whether the first respondent properly considered the claims of the petitioner and the 4th respondent, in light of KER Rule 51A and the appointment regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The decision underscores that preferences in teacher appointments must align with KER Rule 51A, prioritizing protected teachers, which was not adequately considered in the earlier order.
Final Decision: The court quashed the earlier order and directed a reconsideration of the appointment claims in accordance with the relevant provisions.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was appointed as HSA (Physical Science) in the S.N.High School, Nankicity, Kanhikuzhy with effect from 14.07.1994. Consequent to the staff fixation for the academic year 2003-2004, there was a reduction in the post of HSA (Physical Science) and that led to the petitioner being deployed to the Government High School, Alpara as a protected teacher. He was thereafter transferred to Thodupuzha Boys High School, Mullaringadu Government High School and then to the M.E.S Higher Secondary School, Vandanmedu. While working as HSA at Vandanmedu, the petitioner found that there was a vacancy of HSA (Physical Science) in the parent School namely S.N.V.H.S.S, Kanhikuzhi. He therefore brought this fact to the notice of the Manager of the said School, who preferred Ext.P3 representation dated 14.07.2010 to the 1st respondent to absorb the petitioner as HSA (Physical Science) in the S.N.V.H.S.S, Kanhikuzhi. The request was made by placing reliance on Ext.P2 Government order dated 28.06.2002. When there was no consideration of the representation by the 1st respondent, the petitioner preferred
2-
Ext.P4 representation to the 1st respondent. On finding that there was no action forthcoming from the 1st respondent despite the representations of both the Manager and the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court, which by Ext.P5 judgment directed the 1st respondent to consider Exts.P3 and P4 representations and pass orders thereon. This led to Ext.P8 order dated 12.01.2011 whereby the petitioners claim for absorption to the S.N.V.H.S.S, Kanhikuzhi came to be rejected. In Ext.P8 order, it is stated that although there is a vacancy of HSA (Physical Science) in the School in question, as per Ext.P6 Government order, a Rule 51 A claimant had to be accommodated in the School by applying the 1:1:1 ratio which existed prior to 07.01.2002. In that view of the matter, it was found that inasmuch as the 4th respondent was a Rule 51 A claimant and an HSA in (Maths), and the vacancy in question was to be filled taking all the core subjects together, it was the 4th respondent who had to be accommodated to the vacancy subsisting in the School and hence, the claim of the petitioner for accommodation thereto could not be considered. Ext.P8 order is impugned in the writ petition inter alia on the ground that it ignores the provisions of Rule 51A of Chapter 14A of the KER which clearly indicate that, as between Rule 51A claimants and protected teachers, the protected teacher is to be given
3-
preference while considering their candidature for appointment to the post of teacher in a School. It is also contended that insofar as the vacancy in question in the School occurred to the post of HSA (Physical Science) and not to the post of HSA (Maths), it was the petitioner that had to be appointed in the vacancy by redeployment and not the 4th respondent.
2. Per contra, the 4th respondent would contend that the decision in Ext.P8 was correctly arrived insofar as it takes into account the Government order dated 17.06.2009 passed by the State Government. Accordingly, the appointment of the 4th respondent to the vacancy that arose in the School, based on her superior claim as a Rule 51A claimant and on application of the ratio that existed prior to 07.01.2002, had been correctly appreciated by the 1st respondent while passing Ext.P8 order. 3. I have heard Sri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Smt.Sheela Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1st and 3rd respondents.
4-
4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that the 1st respondent requires to reconsider the decision taken in Ext.P8 order passed by him. The materials available on record, and noticed in Ext.P8 order of the 1st respondent, would reveal that consequent to the staff fixation order for
