The High Court quashed the District Educational Officer's order rejecting the petitioner's High School Assistant appointment, directing a fresh reconsideration in light of subject ratio rules and staff fixation data.
The Ext.P9 order was quashed; D.E.O directed to reconsider and pass fresh orders within two months after hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/13TH SRAVANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 25933 of 2016 (N)
PETITIONER(S):
SMITHA PETER, AGED 36, W/O. KURIEN ABRAHAM, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT [PS], ST. JOHNS HIGH SCHOOL, ELANAD, VENNUR P.O., TRICHUR -680 587.
BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR- 680 001.
4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR- 680 001.
5. CORPORATE MANAGER, CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF MUVATTUPUZHA, MUVATTUPUZHA- 683 541.
R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 25933 of 2016 (N)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
| EXHIBIT P1. | COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 03.11.2012. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2. | COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS TRANSFERRING SMT. RESSY ALEX AS H.S.A [PS] TO ST.JOHNS HIGH SCHOOL, PIRAVOM DATED 29.10.2012. |
| EXHIBIT P3. | COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 23.03.2013. |
| EXHIBIT P4. | COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P5. | COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 04.09.2013. |
| EXHIBIT P6. | COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FILED BY 5TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P7. | COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DATED 23.05.2015. |
| EXHIBIT P8. | COPY OF THE ORDER OF 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.10.2015. |
| EXHIBIT P9. | COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 07.07.2016. |
| EXHIBIT P10. | COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HEADMASTER OF ST. JOSEPH'S HIGH SCHOOL. |
| EXHIBIT P11. | COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED 13.04.2016. |
| EXHIBIT P12. | COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.1859/2006 DATED 18.10.2006. |
| EXHIBIT P13. | COPY OF JUDGMENT IN 2008 [2] KLT 771 [SC] OF THE APEX COURT DATED 08.05.2008. |
| EXHIBIT P14. | COPY OF G.O[RT] NO.1427/2011/G.EDN DATED 08.04.2011. |
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
P.V.ASHA, J.
W.P(C) No.25933 of 2016-N
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2016
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. M.A. Fayaz, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
W.P(C) No.25933 of 2016-N 2
transfer of Smt.Ressi Alex and did not furnish the undertaking as required in circular No.49982/J2/2012/G.Edn. dt.10.09.2012.
W.P(C) No.25933 of 2016-N 3
with effect from the date of that order.
the proposal for approval to the D.E.O, seeing that the Government had issued G.O(P)No.29/2016/G.Edn. dated 29.01.2016, in tune with the direction of this Court in a batch of
W.P(C) No.25933 of 2016-N 4
writ petitions. But by Ext.P9 order dated 7.7.2016, the D.E.O Chavakkad again rejected the proposal on the ground that there was no sanctioned post of H.S.A (Physical Science) in the School for appointing the petitioner, at the relevant time. It is stated that, as per the staff fixation proceedings for the year 2012-13, there were only 7 divisions and 7 posts, sanctioning 2 posts each for Physical Science, Natural Science and Mathematics and 1 post each for Social Science and English. D.E.O found that there were 2 H.S.As in Social Science in the School, as per the staff list furnished as on 8.11.2012; since 7 teachers were already working in 7 sanctioned posts, there was no post for the petitioner and accordingly rejected the proposal. It is this order Ext.P9, which is under challenge in this writ petition.
W.P(C) No.25933 of 2016-N 5
was no reduction to the number of sanctioned posts in Physical Science in the year 2012-13 and the the number of sanctioned posts for that subject continues to be the same, i.e 2 since the year 2010-11 to 2015.16, whereas the number of posts sanctioned for Social Science was reduced to 1 for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14. In Ext.P9 the D.E.O also admits that 2 posts are available for Physical science and reduction of post was in Social Science. The petitioner points out that approval was declined in blatant violation of the orders and precedents on the subject, which insist for following the subject ratio, subject requirement and qualification of teachers, according to which, there should have been one more Physical Science hand in the School on transfer of Smt.Ressi Alex, as there was only one teacher in Physical Science thereafter. Ext.P10 order shows that the transferred teacher is getting salary. While issuing the order Ext.P9, the D.E.O has only looked into the number of teachers in the school as on 08.11.2012. The rejection of approval is not for the reason that there is no post in Physical Science, but on the ground that there are already 7 teachers.
W.P(C) No.25933 of 2016-N 6
judgment - Rakhee v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 766] and the judgment of the Apex Court in Deepa Augustine v. Geetha Alex [2008 (2) KLT 771 (SC)], it is well settled that there should be sufficient number of qualified teachers in accordance with the subject requirement and subject ratio, which is the criteria for retrenchment as well as promotion of teachers. But the D.E.O, while declining the approval, has not considered any of these aspects.
In the above circumstances, I quash Ext.P9 order and direct the D.E.O, Chavakkad to re-consider the issue and pass fresh orders on the proposal for approval of Ext.P1 order of
W.P(C) No.25933 of 2016-N 7
appointment of the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Manager-the 5th respondent, and affected parties if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since the proposal for approval is seen returned, the Manager shall re-submit the proposal for approval to the D.E.O, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The D.E.O shall communicate the orders to the petitioner and the Manager, as directed.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)
rtr/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Educational Officer reasonably rejected the petitioner's appointment proposal on the ground of no sanctioned post available.
Whether the D.E.O considered relevant factors such as subject ratio and qualification requirements while declining approval.
Whether the educational authorities followed settled principles regarding teacher approval and retention.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rakhee v. State of KeralaApplied¶48
Rakhee v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 766]
Deepa Augustine v. Geetha AlexApplied¶48
Deepa Augustine v. Geetha Alex [2008 (2) KLT 771 (SC)]
W.P.(C) No.30107/2013Referred¶38
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Smitha Peter
State of Kerala
Director of Public Instructions
Deputy Director of Education
District Educational Officer
Corporate Manager, Catholic Diocese of Muvattupuzha
P.V. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
