Allowed

D. Abraham v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Aug 2009WP(C)/17429/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the petitioner, a school manager, who sought approval of an appointment. The court held that after a change of management and ownership, former schools become separate institutions, staff of those schools cannot claim absorption rights in the new school's posts.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders directing pass-file refused were quashed; approval of appointment granted; direction to pass orders within one month.

D. Abraham Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 17429 of 2009(W)

PETITIONER(S):

D.ABRAHAM,THE MANAGER, ST.GREGORIOUS L.P.S.,PUNNAKULAM, KULASEKHARAPURAM P.O.,KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,KOLLAM.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.12.2001 OF THE DPI

¶20

EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 8.1.02 OF AEO,

¶21

EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.3.2005 OF A.E.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY

¶22

EXT.P4-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.7.2005 OF DEO

¶23

EXT.P5-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.7.2006 OF DPI

¶24

EXT.P6-TRUE COPY OF APPEAL BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT

¶25

EXT.P7-TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 28.5.2009

¶26

EXT.P8-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 6.11.2001 OF DPI

¶27

EXT.P9-TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 27.9.2004

¶28

EXT.P10-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.6.2009 OF SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE OF THE ASST. EDUL. OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶29

// TRUE COPY //

¶30

P.S. T JUDGE

¶31

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶32

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶33

W.P.(C) No.17429 of 2009-W

¶34

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶35

Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009.

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioner who is the Manager of a school, viz. St. Gregorious L.P. School, Punnakulam, is aggrieved by the orders Exts.P3, P4, P5 and P7 refusing to approve the appointment of Smt. S. Ajitha, as LPSA with effect from 27.9.2004.

¶38

The previous Manager of the school was one Shri V. Achuthan Pillai. The petitioner became the Manager, by a transfer made by the previous Manager, as a member of the managing committee of St. Gregorious Charitable Society. Ext.P1 is the order sanctioning the change of management by the Director of Public Instruction. This involved change of ownership also. Ext.P2 is the consequential order passed by the Asst. Educational Officer approving the petitioner as the Manager. The name of the school has been changed to St. Gregorious L.P.S., Punnakulam. After the change was approved, a bye-law was also constituted for the functioning of the school which was also approved by the Director of Public Instruction as per order dated 6.11.2001.

¶39

It is the case of the petitioner that because of the various steps

¶40

¶41

wpc 17429/2009

¶42

taken to improve the functioning of the school, an additional division was sanctioned during 2004-05 and accordingly, Smt. Ajitha was appointed as

¶43

LPSA with effect from 27.9.2004. Ext.P3 is the order by which the approval of the same was declined. The only reason for rejecting the approval is that certain protected teachers are still working in K.S.Puram U.P.S./Onavila U.P.S. which were under the same transferor management. This reason stated for declining approval was challenged in appeal, but the appeal also resulted in the same fate. Finally, the Government as per Ext.P7 confirmed these orders.

¶44

The Government was of the view that the appointment of fresh candidates can be approved only after calling back all the protected teachers deployed in Government schools. In fact, the order of the Director of Public Instruction which is produced as Ext.P5, shows that the change of management involving ownership of the school was made in the year 2001 without any condition or agreement regarding the absorption of protected teacher working under the Corporate Educational Agency of the former manager. It was also held that the former manager of Punnakulam LPS has two other schools viz. Kulasekharapuram UPS and Onavila UPS and he is liable to absorb protected teachers in the future vacancies arising in schools under the management. Still, the revision petition was rejected.

¶45

¶46

wpc 17429/2009

¶47

Ext.P8 is the order granting approval of the bye-law in the year 2001. The appointment was made on 27.9.2004 as already mentioned. The petitioner is relying upon G.O.(P) No.317/2005/G.Edn. dated 17.8.2005 wherein it was ordered that “all appointments of Government/Aided school teachers made against regular additional division vacancies during 2004-05 will also be approved, if otherwise eligible as per the provisions in the KER.” It is therefore contended that approval ought to have been granted.

¶48

The main ground raised in the writ petition is that by approval of the change of management involving change of ownership, the school became a single unit. The protected teachers of other schools of the former manager cannot have any claim for absorption in the petitioner’s school as against the newly sanctioned posts in the staff fixation 2004-05. Apart from that, it is also contended that there is no protected teacher awaiting absorption in the school in question, as nobody has been deployed on protection after the change of management. The new management is not responsible to recall any of the protected teachers to the new vacancy.

¶49

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Govt. Pleader. Ext.P1 is the order by which the change of management involving change of ownership was approved. The Director of Public Instruction granted permission without imposing any condition for absorbing a protected

¶50

¶51

wpc 17429/2009

¶52

teacher from other schools of the Corporate Educational Agency. In fact, this fact is reiterated in the order passed by the Director of Public Instruction, viz. Ext.P5. The Government has relied upon Rule 5A(3) of Chapter III K.E.R. When the permission was granted, evidently the said condition was not imposed. Therefore, obviously the said rule cannot be relied upon against the petitioner.

¶53

The other two schools are still under the management of the previous manager. The question whether after the transfer is effected, the teachers of those schools can claim any right in the school, is no longer res integra in the light of the various decisions of this court. The earliest of the decisions of this court on that point is P.V. John v. Director of Public Instruction (ILR 1975 (2) Ker. 604) wherein in para 6 it was held thus:

¶54

“As far as the interests of the staff are concerned, protection can be there only to the extent that is provided by the Act and the Rules. By a transfer like this, the staff cannot be denied their valid rights as teachers of an aided school. But it cannot be forgotten that the effect of the transfer that has resulted by the partition is that every one of the three schools becomes separate institutions. In that case, the staff in one of the schools cannot in any way insist that he or she should be given the option to be in the staff of any of the other two

¶55

wpc 17429/2009

¶56

¶57

schools. Even though as per the common seniority list approved prior to the partition, a member of the staff in any one of the schools was senior to another member of the staff in any one of the other two schools, he or she cannot claim any superior right because they have become members of the staff of separate schools. “The interests of the staff” mentioned in rule 5A of Chapter III of the Rules can only be their interests as members of the staff of the three separate schools. As members of the staff of the three separate schools they cannot insist on the continuance of the common seniority list. The common seniority list has disappeared the moment the schools were partitioned. The Director of Public Instruction cannot withhold approval to the change of management in question for the reasons stated in Ext.P4.”

¶58

Therefore, it is clear that once the institution becomes separate, the staff of one of the schools cannot in any way insist that he or she should be given the option to be the staff of any of the other schools like the petitioner’s school herein. The position was reiterated by a Division Bench of this court in P.G. Madhavan v. P.K. Santhakumari Amma (1994 (2) KLJ 370) wherein the dictum laid down in P.V. John’s case (ILR 1975 (2) Ker. 604) was approved. This is clear from para 5 which is extracted below:

¶59

“Since the change approved as per Ext.P4(c) order is a change of management involving change of ownership of the U.P. School in question, we are of the view that the principles laid down in John's

¶60

¶61

wpc 17429/2009

¶62

case (ILR 1975 (2) Ker. 604) would squarely apply to the facts of the case on hand and on and after 16.5.1984 the two schools have to be treated as totally independent and separate institutions. The members of the staff of the one school cannot on that ground alone claim any right under the Act and Rules in respect of the other School or as against the owner, manager and staff of the other school on and after approval of such change under Rule 5A of Chapter III of the KER. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the first respondent who is a member of the staff of the U.P. School alone cannot lay any claim to be appointed to the vacancy which arose in the High School on 31.3.1993 under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A she being a teacher in a separate school under a different educational agency on and after 16.5.1984.”

¶63

Therefore, the members of the staff of one school cannot claim

¶64

any right under the Act and Rules in respect of the other school or as against the owner, manager and staff of the other school after approval of such change under Rule 5A of Chapter III K.E.R. The above decisions have been considered recently by this court in W.P.(P) No.15227/2008 and connected cases and in almost identical circumstances, it was held that in the new vacancy which arose after the transfer of management, the teachers of the schools of the previous management cannot have any right at all.

¶65

Herein, going by the admitted facts, the change of management with change of ownership is without any conditions to absorb any protected

¶66

¶67

wpc 17429/2009

¶68

teachers of the schools owned by the former Manager. The vacancy arose after the approval of the transfer of management in the year 2004. The protected teachers of the school, viz. K.S.Puram L.P.S./Onavila L.P.S. cannot have any right to seek absorption against the petitioner's school. They can claim any right only against the management of those schools.

¶69

In that view of the matter, the orders impugned cannot survive. Hence, Exts.P3, P4, P5 and P7 are quashed. Consequently, the teacher Smt. S. Ajitha is entitled to be granted approval pursuant to the order of appointment, Ext.P9. There will be a direction to the District Educational Officer to pass appropriate orders granting approval within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The teacher will also be sanctioned consequential monetary benefits including arrears flowing from the grant of approval, without any further delay.

¶70

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶71

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶72

kav/

D. Abraham v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Abraham v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.M.Francis Vs Subash Batra

K.P.Revathi Vs Valsala Kumari

A.M.Shali Vs James Varghese

C. Shoukathali Vs Kerala State Warehousing Corporation

K.S.Manikantan Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises

Suja Rani.S Vs State of Kerala