Dismissed

Sajina.P.v. v. the Manager, Radhakrishnan

Kerala HC10 Oct 2011WP(C)/15081/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A teacher challenged the rejection of her claim to be retained in an aided school after her appointment salary was cut short. The court held that applying the 1:40 ratio retained a protected permanent teacher, leaving no vacancy for the petitioner, thereby dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition dismissing the claim for appointment in the school was dismissed.

Sajina.P.v. Vs the Manager, Radhakrishnan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SIRI JAGAN.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 15081 of 2006(U)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

SAJINA.P.V., W/O.RAJEEVAN, RAMANI NIVAS, CHEKKIKULAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE MANAGER, RADHAKRISHNA A U P SCHOOL, MANIYOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

2. THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALIPARAMBA SOUTH, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶15

3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

R2 & R3 - BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. L.G. SURESH BABU.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

SCL.

¶19

WP(C).No. 15081 of 2006(U)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2004-05 DATED 27.05.05.

¶23

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER DATED 18.7.05.

¶24

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.9679/J2/99/G.EDN. DATED 24.3.99 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF SMT. GINCY MATHEW DATED 24.4.01.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

SCL.

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶31

W.P.(C) No.15081 OF 2006

¶32

Dated this the 10^th day of October, 2011

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner worked as an Assistant Teacher in the aided school managed by the 1^st respondent for the period from 2.6.2003 to 31.3.2005. But, her appointment was approved and salary paid only up to 14.7.2004. The petitioner challenged that action, which ultimately resulted in Ext.P2 order of the Government, wherein the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the following order:

¶35

“Inviting your attention to the reference cited, I am to inform you that the Assistant Educational Officer, Thaliparamba South has revised the staff fixation of the School for the year 2004-2005 by applying 1:40 ratio and Shri. P. Hareesh Kumar is retained in the School under protection. Your are appointed against the leave vacancy of T.K. Prasanthan w.e.f 15.7.2004 to 31.3.2005. As per the existing orders, the leave vacancies cannot be filled up where protected teachers are retained under protection by applying 1:40 ratio. In the above circumstances your representation mentioned above deserves no merit and the same is rejected.”

¶36

The petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P2 of which Ext.P1 is the

¶37

W.P.(C)No.15081/06 2

¶38

original order passed by the A.E.O. The petitioner's contention is that by applying 1:40 ratio, the petitioner can also be retained by applying Ext.P3 Government Order on the subject.

¶39

Counter affidavits have been filed by the 2^nd respondent, wherein the stand taken is that on accommodating Sri. P. Hareesh Kumar by applying 1:40 ratio there is no further vacancy available for accommodating another teacher that too a person who was appointed in a leave vacancy.

¶40

I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Even for applying Ext.P3 Government Order on the subject, the petitioner has to show that on applying 1:40 ratio there is a vacancy available for accommodating the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to satisfy me that there is such a vacancy. In fact, a permanent teacher Sri. P. Hareesh Kumar himself is retained under protection by applying 1:40 ratio. If there was a vacancy to which the petitioner could have been adjusted then it was not necessary for retaining Sri. P. Hareesh Kumar under protection by applying 1:40 ratio. From the facts available in the case, it is abundantly clear that the regular teacher Sri. P. Hareesh Kumar is retained under protection by applying 1:40 ratio. That means there is no further vacancy to

¶41

W.P.(C)No.15081/06

¶42

¶43

which the petitioner could have been accommodated for the period from 15.7.2004 to 31.3.2005. As such, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶44

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶45

acd

¶46

W.P.(C)No.15081/06 4

Sajina.P.v. v. the Manager, Radhakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajina.P.v. v. the Manager, Radhakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Greeshma Prakash

K.Sidharathan Vs State of Kerala

A.v.Subramanian Vs State of Kerala and Others

K.Mukesh Vs M.Sivasankar

P.K.Muraleedharan Kartha Vs C.Thampi Paul

Sreenivasan K. and Another Vs the Authorised Officer and Another