Dismissed

The Manager, a.U.P.School v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Nov 2012WP(C)/21672/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the rejection of the appellant's appointment as a Physical Education Teacher. The petitioner argued for deemed continuation of the post, while the respondent contended the post was abolished due to insufficient students. The Court declined interference and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Interference with the administrative order rejecting the appointment is declined; the writ petition dismissed.

The Manager, a.U.P.School Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/14TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 21672 of 2012 (H)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. THE MANAGER, A.U.P.SCHOOL CHEERAL, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. P.S. SIVA PRAKASH FORMERLY PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, AUP SCHOOL CHEERAL, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶14

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION WAYANAD AT KALPETTA - 673 121.

¶15

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, WAYANAD AT KALPETTA - 673 121.

¶16

5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673 592.

¶17

R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

tss

¶20

W.P.(C) NO.21672/2012

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT-P1:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 01/06/2011

¶24

EXHIBIT-P2:- COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO.D.DIS.D 2733/2011 DATED 27/07/2011.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D/2167/2011/L.DIS DATED 12/09/2011 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P4:- COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM OF THE MANAGER DATED 27/08/2011.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P4(A):-COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16/11/2011.

¶28

EXHIBIT-P5:- COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE MANAGER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 19/12/2011.

¶29

EXHIBIT-P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B/9679/2011/K.DIS DATED 29/02/2012 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT-P7:- COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE MANAGER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 31/03/2012.

¶31

EXHIBIT-P8:- COPY OF THE G.O(RT) 3409/2012/G.EDN. DATED 17/07/2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶33

R5(a):- COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2001-02.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶38

W.P.(C). No. 21672 of 2012

¶39

Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2012

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

The petitioner is the Manager of the A.U.P School, Cheeral, Sulthan Bathery, who is stated as aggrieved of the rejection of approval of appointment given to the 2^nd petitioner as Physical Education Teacher in the said School. The case of the petitioners is that, there arose a retirement vacancy in the School on 31.3.2011 and against the said vacancy, the said petitioner was appointed. By virtue of Government Order dated 1.10.2011, the Staff Fixation which was available in respect of the previous year, i.e., 2010-2011 was also to continue for the year 2011-2012 as well. Referring to Ext.P2 Staff Fixation Order, the petitioners contend that the position continued very much and the concerned incumbent retired from the post only on 31.3.2011.

¶42

This being the position, applying the Government Order dated 1.10.2011, the post ought have been deemed as continued by virtue of the deemed continuation of Staff Fixation and as such, the appointment given to the 2^nd petitioner is quite in order

¶43

W.P.C. No.21672 of 2012 -2-

¶44

and is stated as liable to be approved. Since the remedy pursued by the petitioners before the departmental authorities and finally before the Government by way of revision came to be turned down (the last order passed by the Government being Ext. 8 dated 17.7.2012), the petitioners is before this Court with a specific contention that, by virtue of the mandate under Rule 4(4) of Chapter VIII KER, every school has to accommodate a Physical Education Teacher and thus contends that, the appointment of the petitioner to the said post is liable to be approved.

¶45

The learned Government Pleader submits with reference to the counter affidavit filed by the 5^th respondent that, the idea and understanding of the petitioner is per se wrong and misconceived. By virtue of the non availability of sufficient No: of students, the post was abolished as early as on 2001 vide Ext. R5 (a) and it was only by virtue of the proviso to Rule 6 B(i) of Chapter XXIII KER, that the existing Physical Education Teacher by name Mohan George was given protection and was allowed to remain in service till his retirement i.e., till 31.3.2011. The post vacated by the said incumbent is not a regular post borne on the

¶46

W.P.C. No.21672 of 2012 -3-

¶47

rolls of the school and as such, no reliance could have been placed with reference to the mandate of the Government Order dated 1.10.2011.

¶48

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the course pursued by the departmental authorities and the Government is not liable to be assailed under any circumstance. The version put forth by the petitioner is not supported by any

¶49

merit, either on facts or in law. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶50

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶51

Kp/-

The Manager, a.U.P.School v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager, a.U.P.School v. the State of Kerala

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

The Manager Vs the Government of Kerala

The Manager, Vocational Higher Secondary School Vs the State of Kerala

M.Padmanabhan Namboothiri Vs Malabar Devaswom Board

Ajith.Raj.D. Vs Mahatma Gamndhi University

Mohanan Nampoothiri.v. Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

P.v.Babu Vs the State of Kerala