Dismissed

C.Kalavathy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Nov 2012WP(C)/25385/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the denial of the petitioner's appointment to an Upper Primary School Assistant vacancy. The Court rejected the claim, holding that the petitioner acquired necessary qualifications after a service-enhanced respondent had already accrued Rule 51 A claimant status, thus lacking merit for interference. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.

C.Kalavathy Vs State of Kerala — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/23RD KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 25385 of 2012 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

C.KALAVATHY, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.BHAVA DASAN, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, VADAKKE RAVUNNIYAVATH CHINNA AMMA MEMORIAL UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VALLANGHY, KOLLANGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

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

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED B Y ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678001.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678001.

¶13

4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLANGODE,PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678506.

¶14

5. THE MANAGER, VADAKKE RAVUNNIYAVATH CHINNA AMMA MEMORIAL UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VALLANGHY,KOLLANGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678506.

¶15

6. THE HEADMASTER,

¶16

VADAKKE RAVUNNIYAVATH CHINNA AMMA MEMORIAL

¶17

UPPERPRIMARY SCHOOL,

¶18

VALLANGHY,KOLLANGODE,PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678506.

¶19

7. SRI.C.SAJEEV, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT,

¶20

VADAKKE RAVUNNIYAVATH CHINNA AMMA MEMORIAL

¶21

UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL,

¶22

VALLANGHY,KOLLANGODE,PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678506.

¶23

R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR BY SMT.LOWSY.A., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

WP(C).No. 25385 of 2012 (W)

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXT-P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B.911/11/K.DIS DATED 20.12.2011 OF 4TH RESPONDENT
EXT-P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.12.2011
EXT-P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4-11268/11/L.DIS DATED 31.3.2012 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXT-P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE ENDORSEMENT THEREOF
EXT-P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B.159/12/D.DIS DATED 27.4.2012 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXT-P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.102/2012/G.EDN.DATED 29.3.2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT ALONG WITH RELEVANT PAGE OF THE LIST
EXT-P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT 30.5.2012
EXT-P9:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C). 13771 OF 2012-V DATED 14.6.2012
EXT-P10:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B.1856/2011 DATED 16.7.2012 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXT-P11:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)17280/2012-H DATED 7-8-2012
EXT-P12:	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.50012012/G.EDN.DATED 18.10.2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT
EXT-P13:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.283/11/D.DIS.DATED 9.5.2011 OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER.
EXT-P14:	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF SMT.N.LEELA DATED 1/8/1984.
RESPONDENTS	' EXHIBITS:
EXT.R7(A):	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1/6/2009 IN RESPECT OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.R7(B):	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1/6/2010 IN RESPECT OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT.

¶30

CONT...

¶31

WP(C).No. 25385 of 2012 (W)

¶32

EXT.R7(C): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1/8/2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXT.R7(D): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/10/2012 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶38

W.P.(C). No. 25385 of 2012

¶39

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2012

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

The denial of approval to the appointment of the petitioner

¶42

as a UPSA in the vacancy which arose on 1.6.2011 by the Departmental Authorities which has been confirmed by the Government pursuant to rejection of revision petition is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

¶43

The petitioner was originally appointed as a Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in the 5^th respondent School. She continued there from 11.8.2004 to 30.6.2008 and the said appointment was approved by the Departmental Authorities. Subsequently, there arose a retirement vacancy on 1.6.2011 in the cadre of UPSA, when one N. Leela came out of service on attaining the age of superannuation and the petitioner came to be appointed against the said vacancy. However, approval of the said appointment was rejected by the AEO as per Ext.P1 holding that, a senior hand by name Sajeev.C, the 7^th respondent herein, was there in front of the petitioner. The factual position reveals that, the 7^th

¶44

W.P.C. No. 25385 of 2012 -2-

¶45

respondent was appointed as UPSA during the period from 1.6.2009 to 31.3.2010 which service stands approved and he has attained the status of a Rule 51 A claimant. Though the 7^th respondent came to be appointed later, with effect from 1.6.2010 pursuant to the Super Check conducted, it was held that there was excess staff strength and accordingly the 7^th respondent was thrown out and salary was sought to be reimbursed.

¶46

While so, being aggrieved by Ext.P1, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the DEO. The Management of the School preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director by way of Ext.P4, which however came to be returned with an endorsement to have it taken up before the AEO. Ext.P2 appeal preferred before the DEO has been rejected as per Ext.P3 order dated 31.3.2012, while Ext.P4 preferred by the Manager subsequently came to be dealt with by the AEO, which was rejected as per Ext.P5 order dated 27.4.2012.

¶47

In view of the turn of events, the Deputy Director directed the 7^th respondent to be accommodated against the vacancy as per Ext.P6 order dated 28.5.2012. This led to Ext.P8

¶48

W.P.C. No. 25385 of 2012 -3-

¶49

revision petition filed before the Government and pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment dated 14.06.2012 passed by this Court in W.P. (C).No. 13771/2012, the Government was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in the revision petition. Pursuant to Ext.P6 order, the 7^th respondent came to be accommodated against the post held by the petitioner as per Ext.P10 passed by the AEO. This however was subjected to challenge by filing a

¶50

revision petition before the Government. The petitioner approached this Court again by filing W.P.(C).No.17280/2012, wherein Ext.P11 judgment was passed directing the Government to pass appropriate orders on the revision petition preferred against Ext.P10. Ext.P12 is the order passed by the 1^st respondent, whereby, a positive declaration has been made to the effect that, the petitioner acquired the necessary qualification of TTC only on declaring the result on 21.8.2010 and hence was junior to the 7^th respondent. Accordingly, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P12. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned proceedings passed by the Departmental Authorities as well as

¶51

W.P.C. No. 25385 of 2012 -4-

¶52

the Government as mentioned hereinbefore.

¶53

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner had commenced service much earlier than the 7^th respondent, by virtue of appointment given as Junior Hindi Teacher and that the said appointment was approved by the Departmental Authorities as well and hence is having better rights to be considered for appointment in respect of the vacancy

¶54

of UPSA which arose on 1.6.2011. With reference to the appointment given to Smt. N.Leela, who vacated the seat leading to the vacancy which arose on 1.6.2011, the learned counsel submits that the appointment given to Smt. N.Leela was as an LPSA and this being the position, it is none other than the petitioner who is liable to be accommodated and appointed in the vacancy which arose on 1.6.2011, more so since, the 7^th respondent is not having the prescribed qualification of TTC, to be appointed as UPSA. The learned counsel further submits that, by virtue of 'Note 1' to Rule 51 A, the seniority has to be reckoned with reference to the date of 1^st appointment, which stands earlier to the appointment of the 7^th respondent. It is also

¶55

W.P.C. No. 25385 of 2012 -5-

¶56

brought to the notice of this Court that, the 7^th respondent has already been included in 'Teachers Package' as discernible from Ext.P7 and she is receiving salary, while the impugned orders have adversely affected the rights and interest of the petitioner and hence are sought to be intercepted by this Court.

¶57

The learned counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent submits that, the idea and understanding of the petitioner as to the factual and legal position is per se wrong and misconceived. The petitioner was never qualified at the time of appointment as UPSA for the obvious fact that, she acquired the necessary qualification only on 21.8.2010, pursuant to the acquisition of TTC, whereas, the 7^th respondent had already commenced the service much earlier by virtue of the service rendered during the period from 1.6.2009 to 31.3.2010, acquiring the status of Rule 51 A claimant. The learned counsel also submits that, Rule 51 A specifically refers to the case of qualified teachers as per the relevant rules, who is to be extended the benefits as contemplated therein and the petitioner, not being a qualified hand at the time of commencement of service by the 7^th

¶58

W.P.C. No. 25385 of 2012 -6-

¶59

respondent (who came to be thrown out acquiring the status of Rule 51 A claimant), there cannot be any vested right for the petitioner to claim appointment in preference to the 7^th respondent.

¶60

With regard to the alleged appointment given to Smt. N. Leela, with reference to Ext.P14, the learned counsel submits that the said document or such a plea was never part of the entire proceedings throughout, either before the Departmental Authorities or even before the Government and the petitioner has sought to produce the same only along with I.A.No. 15097 of 2012. Reference is made to the specific case moulded by the petitioner herself in the writ petition to the effect that, she was re-appointed as UPSA from 1.6.2011, against a retirement vacancy. This being the position, it cannot be said that the seat vacated by Smt. N. Leela was that of an LPSA. The learned counsel further submits that the contents of Ext.P14 by itself would reveal that, Smt. N. Leela came to be appointed in the 5^th respondent school, against the vacancy of one Sri. N.Vella, UPSA, who retired from service on 31.3.1984 and this being the

¶61

W.P.C. No. 25385 of 2012 -7-

¶62

position, the actual vacancy was in respect of UPSA and it was against the said vacancy, that the 7^th respondent put up the claim, which in turn was considered by the Departmental Authorities as well as the Government. There was no dispute with regard to the factual aspect in this regard even from the part of the petitioner till the filing of I.A. No. 15097/2012 producing a copy of Ext.P14 and hence it is not liable to be looked into, submits the learned counsel. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, by virtue of the mandate under 'Note 1(a)' of Rule 51 A, only after accommodating the thrown out hands, fresh appointments can be effected by the Management and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to have any relief.

¶63

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submits that, the factual and legal aspects have been meticulously analysed by the Departmental Authorities and also by the Government at different points of time. The Rule contemplates accommodation of only 'qualified hands' and the petitioner was never qualified at the time of original appointment

¶64

W.P.C. No. 25385 of 2012 -8-

¶65

as a UPSA, she having acquired the necessary qualification of TTC only by 21.8.2010. The learned Government Pleader submits that the 7^th respondent happens to be the person with better claim and credentials, who is liable to be accommodated before filling up the vacancy giving placement to the petitioner; which has been ordered accordingly.

¶66

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the stand taken by the Departmental Authorities and the Government is not assailable under any circumstance. The writ petition is devoid of any merit or bonafides. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶67

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶68

Kp/-

C.Kalavathy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Kalavathy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Habna Jose Vs the Director of Public Instruction

E.Geethakumari Vs State of Kerala

P.Manoharan Vs the State of Kerala

T.P.Abdul Hakkim and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

M. Noorjahan Vs Municipal Secretary

Seena K Vs Kerala State Electricity Board