Allowed

V.P.Sajithadevi v. the State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC7 Jun 2012WP(C)/6276/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition filed by a teacher aggrieved by her non-inclusion in the final seniority list. The Court held that an inter-district transferee need not undergo probation afresh in the new district if probation was completed earlier. The petitioner was directed to be included in the seniority list for consideration of promotion.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to include the petitioner in the final seniority list and consider her claim for appointment as H.S.S.T.

V.P.Sajithadevi Vs the State of Kerala and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 6276 of 2011(H)

¶5

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

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

V.P.SAJITHADEVI, H.S.A (S.S), GOVERNMENT V.H.S.S. & T.T.I, KUMILY.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.BOSE, SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - PIN-695 001.

¶13

2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DIRECTORATE, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA PO.

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.T. SHEEBA

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

WPC.NO.6276/2011 H

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1: EXTRACT OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF SERVICE BOOK SHOWING HER DECLARATION OF PROBATION ON 25/04/1993.

¶22

P2: COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DTD.22/2/2010.

¶23

P3: COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST WITHORDER DTD. 22/11/2010.

¶24

P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 27/11/2010 OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR.

¶25

P5: COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST WITH ORDER DTD.21/12/2010.

¶26

P6: COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DTD. 25/02/2011 BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.

¶27

P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 22/02/2011.

¶28

P8: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE SHOWING THE DETAILS OF SERVICE.

¶29

P9: COPY OF THE LETTER TD. 26/02/2011 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EDUCATION.

¶30

P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20/04/2011.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶32

R2(A): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.62152/U1/09/G.EDN. DTD. 09/03/2010.

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 6276 of 2011-H

¶39

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

¶40

Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011.

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

The petitioner is aggrieved by the non inclusion of her name in Ext.P5 final seniority list of qualified departmental teachers.

¶43

The petitioner is working as H.S.A. (Social Science). The controversy herein is whether, after obtaining inter-district transfer, the petitioner has to undergo the period of probation afresh.

¶44

The initial appointment of the petitioner is as H.S.A. (Social Science) on 1.2.1991 in Kasaragod District. It is averred that her probation was declared with effect from 25.4.1993 which is evident from the relevant page of the service book produced as Ext.P1. On completion of five years of service, she obtained a transfer to Idukki District on 16.9.1996. In the provisional seniority list, against her name, certain remarks were there, against which the petitioner filed Ext.P2 objection. It appears that the remarks were made on the premise that the petitioner is promoted as H.S.A. and has to complete the period of probation, whereas she actually had entered service as H.S.A. itself.

¶45

In the revised provisional seniority list, viz. Ext.P3, the petitioner's

¶46

¶47

wpc 6276/2011

¶48

name is included as rank No.4, but again certain remarks were made against her name. Therein, mention is made about the probation and the petitioner filed Ext.P4 complaint before the Director. In the final seniority list produced as Ext.P5, her name is not included. The petitioner filed a representation in the matter before the Government as per Ext.P6.

¶49

The petitioner is relying upon a Government order, viz. G.O. (Ms) No.25/88/P&ARD dated 25.6.1988 wherein it is mentioned that the inter-district transferees and inter-departmental transferees are not required to undergo fresh probation if they have already completed the probation. Ext.P8 is the certificate issued by the Principal of the school showing that the petitioner is working in the said school from 16.9.1996. Ext.P9 is the communication of the Deputy Director of Education, Idukki addressed to the Principal that as the petitioner has completed the period of probation in Kasaragod district which has already been declared as per proceedings No.L.Dis./19664/93 dated 20.8.1993, it is not required to declare the probation afresh in Idukki District.

¶50

In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, the stand taken is that as per Government letter No.62152/U1/09/G.Edn. dated 9.3.2010 it is clearly specified that all District Recruitment Board Recruits who had been granted inter district transfer from the district of recruitment

¶51

¶52

wpc 6276/2011

¶53

shall forfeit the seniority enjoyed therein and shall have to start probation afresh. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner should have completed two years of probation in the post of H.S.A. in the transferred district.

¶54

Evidently, when the above letter was issued, no reference is seen made to G.O.(Ms) No.25/88/P&ARD dated 25.6.1988. Apart from that, the requirement of completion of probation has already been satisfied by the petitioner. As far as inter district transferees are concerned, going by the proviso to Rule 27(a) of KS & SSR, their seniority will be determined with reference to the dates of their joining duty in the new unit or department. It is not required that they should undergo probation afresh. When the seniority is thus entitled to be determined from the date of their joining duty in the department, their service as such will have to be reckoned from that date. Under Rule 18 of KS & SSR, in sub-rule (i), an inter-departmental transferee shall have to undergo probation in the new department in accordance with the Special Rules. Similar specification is not there as far as inter-district transferees are concerned.

¶55

It is not as if the provisions of KS & SSR requires undergoing probation afresh in the new unit or district to which an inter district transferee is appointed. In that view of the matter, Ext.R2(a) cannot advance the case of the respondents. Therefore, the non inclusion of the

¶56

¶57

wpc 6276/2011

¶58

petitioner in Ext.P5 final seniority list cannot be supported.

¶59

Hence, the writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the second respondent to include the name of the petitioner in Ext.P5 final seniority list in the appropriate place and thereafter her claim for appointment as H.S.S.T. will be considered. Appropriate orders will be passed as above, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶60

As per interim order dated 9.8.2011 in I.A. No.12604/2011 this Court has issued a direction not to fill up one vacancy of HSST (Senior) in Govt. H.S.S., Kumaly. It was again clarified by order dated 6.9.2011 to the effect that “one vacancy of HSST (Senior)(Economics) in the said school will not be filled up.” Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for promotion in the said vacancy will be considered.

¶61

The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.

¶62

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶63

kav/

V.P.Sajithadevi v. the State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Sajithadevi v. the State of Kerala and Others

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

Bhaskaran Vs the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram

Mohammed Riyas Vs the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations

C.B.Syamalatha Vs the Welfare Fund Inspector, Ktwwfb

State of Kerala Vs v.P.Sajitha Devi

Ajith Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Baby Vidya K. Vs State of Kerala