Allowed

P.R.Ramachandran v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Dec 2016WP(C)/12212/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that posts of Higher Secondary School Teachers and Junior teachers cannot be clubbed for applying the 25/75 transfer ratio. Applying the rule separately, the petitioner, as the second transfer appointee in a cadre of six, was within the 25% limit.

What did the court decide?

Exts.P3 and P5 set aside; petitioner's appointment approved; third respondent directed to pass orders within two months.

P.R.Ramachandran Vs the State of 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

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 12212 of 2012 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P.R.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 41 YEARS, SON OF RAMANKUTTY NAIR, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (MALAYALAM), SREERAMA KRISHNA GURUKULA VIDHYA MANDIR, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR-680 551.

¶8

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

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, EDAPPALLY-682 024, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

4. THE MANAGER,

¶14

SREE RAMA KRISHNA GURUKULA VIDHYA MANDIR, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR-680 551.

¶15

5. SRI.M.MURALI, LAB ASSISTANT, SREE RAMA KRISHNA GURUKULA VIDHYA MANDIR, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR-680 551.

¶16

6. THE PRINCIPAL,

¶17

SREE RAMA KRISHNA GURUKULA VIDHYA MANDIR, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR-680 551.

....2/-

..2..

WP(C).No. 12212 of 2012 (B)

¶22

ADDL.R7 IMPLEADED

¶23

7. MANISHA, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYAKUMAR M.C., RESIDING AT NARAYAN VAS, KANNAPURAM, CHERUKUNNU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670301.

¶24

ADDL.R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/6/2014 IN IA.5516/2013

¶25

R1-3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR R4 & 6 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS R5 BY ADVS. SRI.V.K.BEERAN (SR.) SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI R7 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

WP(C).No. 12212 of 2012 (B)

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶31

P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/8368/RDDE/EKM/2011 OF THE R3 DATED 7/10/11

¶32

P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.B2/8021/RDDE/2010 OF THE R3 DATED 15/11/11

¶33

P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ACD.A2/32253/2010/HSE DATED 9/1/12 OF THE DIRECTOR

¶34

P4: COPY OF HEARING NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 17/4/12

¶35

P5: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.2247/2010/G.EDN.DATED 16/5/12 OF THE GOVERNMENT

¶36

P6: COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF HSSTS AS ON 1/7/10

¶37

P7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C6/2818/HSE/99 DATED 10/8/99 OF THE DIRECTOR

¶38

P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ACD.C4/2818/HSE/99 DATED 22/6/2002 OF THE DIRECTOR

¶39

P9: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13/2/12

¶40

P10: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE MANAGER DATED 19/5/10

¶41

P11: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE DATED 1/6/10.

¶42

P12: COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATED 23/3/12

¶43

P13: COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATED 25/5/11.

¶44

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶45

R5(A): COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

¶46

R5(B): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ORDER NO.ACD.C4-2818/HSE/01 DATED 27/7/2005.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

W.P.(C) No.12212 of 2012

¶53

¶54

Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2016

¶55

JUDGMENT

¶56

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order

¶57

passed by the Government, stating that the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Malayalam) to which the petitioner was appointed with effect from 01.06.2010 was liable to be filled up by direct recruitment, in view of the quota prescribed for appointment to the post of HSST. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are 6 posts of HSST in the school, apart from one post of Principal and 14 posts of HSST (Junior). It is stated that by Exts.P3 and P5 orders, the quota fixed for appointment 'by transfer' and direct recruitment has been applied considering the post of HSST and HSST (Junior) as a consolidated unit. It is stated by judgment in Bhavana M.P. v. State of Kerala and Others [2015 (3) KLT 587], this Court has held that going by the provisions of Chapter XXXII, there is no scope for clubbing of the posts of

¶58

W.P.(C) No.12212 of 2012 -2-

¶59

HSST and HSST (Junior) while applying the ratio of 25% / 75% for recruitment. In the above circumstances, it is contended that since the number of posts of HSST is 6 and the petitioner is the second person appointed 'by transfer' to the category of HSST, his appointment is well within the ratio prescribed by Rule 4(3) of Chapter XXXII and therefore his appointment is liable to be approved.

¶60

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent Manager and the learned counsel appearing for the impleaded 7^th respondent.

¶61

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent contending that there are 21 posts of HSST's and only 6 teachers can be posted 'by transfer'. The petitioner was the 7^th teacher appointed under 'by transfer' category and therefore his appointment is not liable to be approved. It is stated that steps for direct recruitment had

¶62

W.P.(C) No.12212 of 2012 -3-

¶63

been taken pursuant to the rejection of approval to the petitioner's appointment. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 6^th respondent Manager stating that no quota rule was violated or infringed while appointing the petitioner as HSST (Malayalam) with effect from 01.06.2010. It is stated that four HSST (Junior) were appointed 'by transfer' from HSA/UPSA and their appointments were duly approved. It is further stated that four appointment 'by transfer' from the post of HSST (Junior) to HSST which is the normal rule, the ratio of 1:3 cannot be applied. It is therefore stated that there are only two 'by transfer' appointees in the post of HSST from HSA and that the petitioner being one of them, was perfectly within the quota rule and his appointment is liable to be approved. The learned counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent would contend that he had participated in the selection process conducted by the Manager for direct recruitment and had secured rank No.1 in the rank list prepared. The 5^th respondent whose instance the orders rejecting the approval

¶64

W.P.(C) No.12212 of 2012

¶65

-4-

¶66

to the petitioner's appointment was passed by the educational authorities, secured only 13^th rank in the Ext.R4(a) rank list. It is further submitted that he had left the employment of the 6^th respondent and is also not represented by counsel before this Court in the proceedings.

¶67

I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. It is clear from a perusal of the materials on record that the petitioner who was appointed as HSST (Malayalam) on 01.06.2010 was only the second 'by transfer' appointee in the post of HSST, which had a cadre strength of six. The violation of quota is alleged by the Government and the educational authorities in Exts.P3 and P5 on taking the cadre strength of HSST Junior and HSST together and applying the ratio to the said number of posts. This is impermissible going by the decision of this Court in Bhavana M.P's case (supra). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the said decision, Government has passed orders applying the ratio to the post of HSST and HSST

¶68

W.P.(C) No.12212 of 2012

¶69

-5-

¶70

(Junior) separately. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that if the ratio of 25% is applied to the post of

¶71

HSST independently, the petitioner who is only the second 'by transfer' appointee would be entitled to approval of his appointment. Exts.P3 and P5 orders to the extent they deny approval to the petitioner's appointment are therefore illegal and unsustainable. Exts.P3 and P5 are set aside. It is directed that the petitioner's appointment as HSST (Malayalam) with effect from 01.06.2010 shall be approved by the third respondent. Orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶72

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE

¶73

P.R.Ramachandran v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.R.Ramachandran 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Baiju.K.C Vs the Central University of Kerala

V.Haridas Vs State of Kerala

Maya.S. Vs University of Calicut

B. Suresh Kumar Vs Cochin Port Trust

T.a.Prabhavathy Vs the State of Kerala

A.v.Jose Vs State of Kerala