Allowed

S. Santhi v. the Governmentof Kerala

Kerala HC2 Dec 2016WP(C)/10315/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition seeking approval of the petitioner's appointment as an HSST (Junior). Relying on a previous decision, the Court held that since the school was aider status at the time of vacancy, the manager's appointment under the Kerala Education Rules was valid and liable to be approved.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of the petitioner as HSST (Junior) from 18.09.2009 declared liable to be approved; respondents directed to pass consequential orders and disburse due amounts within three months.

S. Santhi Vs the Governmentof Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10315 of 2014 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

S. SANTHI, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (JUNIOR) TAMIL, PANCHAYATH HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ELAPPARA, IDUKKI.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION (T) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695 001.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695 001.

¶12

3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN:682 030.

¶13

4. THE MANAGER, PANCHAYATH HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ELAPPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN:685 501.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 10315 of 2014 (L)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.05.2009.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.10.2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30.03.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.310/2009 DATED 21/01/2009. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.2/2010 DATED 02/01/2010.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶24

ANNEXURE R1A COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.132/14/G.EDN. DATED 17/07/2014.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

W.P.(C) No.10315 of 2014

¶31

----------------------------------------Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2016

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as HSST (Junior) in Tamil, in the 4^th respondent school, which is a Panchayat school. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a HSA (Tamil) in 2006. Higher Secondary Section was sanctioned to the school in the year 2004. 12 posts of HSST were sanctioned, out of which, 3 posts were filled up by transfer from among qualified teachers working in the High School Section.

¶34

On 21.09.2008 a HSST (Junior), who was working

¶35

in the school, passed away. To the said permanent vacancy, the petitioner was appointed by the Manager, by Ext.P1 order dated 18.05.2009. When this order was sent up for approval, Regional Deputy Director, by Ext.P2, sought clarification from the Director as to whether the appointment can be approved.

¶36

W.P.(C) No.10315 of 2014

¶37

-2-

¶38

The Director in turn addressed the Government by Ext.P3, but

¶39

the petitioner's appointment was not approved.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶41

the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the school in question was an aided Higher Secondary School and that the appointment of the petitioner being in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XXXII KER, is liable to be approved. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that by Government Order dated 06.10.1995, all appointments in Panchayat schools had been directed to be made through the Kerala Public Service Commission. The said provisions thereafter been made applicable to Higher Secondary Schools as well, by Circular dated 07.08.2006. It is stated that by Ext.P5 Government Order dated 02.01.2010, the Government had decided to take over all the Panchayat schools and to give the employees therein, the status of

¶43

W.P.(C) No.10315 of 2014 -3-

¶44

Government employees. It is therefore contended that no appointments could have been made to the post of HSST

¶45

(Junior) otherwise, through the Public Service Commission, in Higher Secondary Schools, run by Panchayats.

¶46

I have considered the contentions. The question raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court dated 21.10.2012 in W.P.(C)No.24108/2011, considering the question whether the petitioner therein was eligible for promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk, which arose on 11.12.2009. In that judgment, this Court held that since the employee was a Rule 43 claimant and since the school in question was an aided school, as on the date when the vacancy arose, the vacancy had to be filled up, in accordance with the rules then in force, in respect of aided schools. The writ petition was therefore allowed.

¶47

In the instant case also, the vacancy of HSST Tamil had arisen on 21.09.2008. The petitioner had been appointed by the Manager as HSST (Junior) in Tamil on

¶48

W.P.(C) No.10315 of 2014 -4-

¶49

18.05.2009, by Ext.P1 order. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government itself had by Ext.P4 Government Order dated 21.01.2009, specifically clarified that Panchayat schools even after the date of Circular dated 07.08.2006 continued to have aided school status and that the Government had not taken any policy decision to grant the Government School status to such Panchayat schools.

¶50

In the above view of the matter, I am fortified in the view that the schools in question being aided schools as on the date of the appointment of the petitioner on 18.05.2009, the respondents are duty bound to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment, in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XXXII of the KER. The petitioner was a person appointed against the 25% quota set apart for by transfer appointment of teachers in the High School Section. Since no other reasons have been stated for the refusal to approve her appointment, I am of the view that the

¶51

W.P.(C) No.10315 of 2014 -5appointment of the petitioner as HSST (Junior) from 18.09.2009 is liable to be approved. It is so declared. It is directed that the respondents shall pass consequential orders and disburse all amounts due to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶53

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE

¶54

S. Santhi v. the Governmentof Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Santhi v. the Governmentof Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.K.Jyothish Kumar Vs the University of Kerala

Dr.M.v.Narayanan Vs the Central University of Kerala

Ajayakumar.J Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

P.Sundaram Vs the Managing Director, Sbt.

Sheeja N Vs Lice of India

Dinu S.L Vs State of Kerala