Allowed

Santhosh Devassy v. Dy.Dir of Education

Kerala HC14 Jan 2016WP(C)/28780/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging HSA Maths teacher retrenchment. Relying on Rakhee, the court held that retrenchment should have targeted the junior Social Studies teacher, not the petitioner, and directed the Government to regularize the petitioner's service.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Government directed to regularize petitioner's appointment and pay salary with recovery from Manager.

Santhosh Devassy Vs Dy.Dir of Education — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/24TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 28780 of 2005 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SANTHOSH DEVASSY, HSA MATHS, ST.GEORGE HIGH SCHOOL, PARIYARAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.M.KURIAN

¶9

SRI.A.V.THOMAS

¶10

SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN

¶11

SRI.K.T.THOMAS

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR.

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶15

3. THE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY DIOCESE OF IRINJALAKUDA, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶16

4. THE HEADMASTER,

¶17

ST.GEORGE HIGH SCHOOL, PARIYARAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶18

5. SMT.SINDHU LAWRENCE, HSA (ENG) ST. SEBASTIAN'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUTTIKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶19

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUNITHA VINOD BY ADV. SRI.JOMMY THARIAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.E.HAMZA R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.V.VIJAYARAJAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.SAJJAD R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOMMY THARIAN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No. 28780 of 2005 (A)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶24

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.11/2002/G.EDN DATED 07.01.2002 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT

¶25

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.06.2005 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER AND APPROVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶26

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2005 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER AND APPROVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶27

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. NO. (MS) NO.132/09/G.EDN. DEPT. DATED 17.06.2009 ISSUED BY THE GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

¶28

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

¶29

R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO.B3-6295/05 DATED 22.10.05

¶30

R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ED NO.A/104/01 OF SINDU LAWRANCE

¶31

R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE -DO- ED NO.A/62/02 OF -DO-

¶32

R5(C) TRUE COPY OF THE -DO- ED NO.A/44/03 OF -DO-

¶33

R5(D) TRUE COPY OF THE -DO- ED NO.A/71/03 OF -DO-

¶34

R5(E) TRUE COPY OF THE -DO- ED NO.A.111/03-04 OF -DO-

¶35

R5(F) TRUE COPY OF THE -DO- ED NO.A.35/04 OF -DO-

¶36

R5(G) TRUE COPY OF THE -DO- ED NO.A/72/04 OF -DO-

¶37

R5(H) TRUE COPY OF THE -DO- ED NO.A.19/05 OF -DO-

¶38

R5(I) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.338/05/G.EDN OF THE GOVERNMENT

¶39

R5(J) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) 3636/2005-G

¶40

R5(K) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.1218/1991

¶41

R5(L) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.4112/05/G.EDN OF THE GOVERNMENT

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

JJJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 28780 of 2005 (A)

¶47

Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2016

¶48

J U D G M E N T

¶49

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition challenging his retrenchment, as excess staff, in accordance with the staff fixation order issued after the Super Check Cell verification.

¶50

The petitioner's contentions in the writ petition are two fold. One, that he is entitled to be adjusted against the HSA (English) post of the 5^th respondent, since the introduction of HSA (English) as a core subject was to be done in a phased manner, without effecting retrenchment of other teachers in the core subjects, appointed prior to G.O.(P) No.11/2002 dated 7.1.2002. The next contention is that, in retrenching regular teachers on division fall, the

¶51

W.P.(C) No.28780/2005

¶52

-2-

¶53

subject categorization has to be looked into, as has been held by this Court in Rakhee v. State of Kerala - 2007 (1) KLT 766 .

¶54

With respect to the challenge against the 5^th respondent's appointment, it is to be noticed that the said teacher was appointed as an HSA (English) in the Academic Year 2004-2005 and the challenge raised herein is with respect to the Academic Year 2005-2006. In such circumstance, the 5^th respondent, having been appointed in the earlier Academic Year and having been subsequently approved, her claim to be continued cannot be touched in the Academic Year 2005-2006 on the contention of phased implementation of G.O.(P) No. 11/2002. The phased implementation is only to ensure that in an academic year a teacher in another core subject is not retrenched, while making a fresh appointment of H.S.A. (English).

¶55

W.P.(C) No.28780/2005

¶56

-3-

¶57

Another learned Single Judge of this Court

¶58

had, after hearing the parties, directed the Government to file a statement as to whether there was any reduction of staff strength caused in the subject Maths. A statement has been filed dated 3.8.2015 indicating that the eight schools under the 3^rd respondent Corporate Management did not suffer any reduction in staff strength in Maths or English either in the year 2004-2005 or in the year 2005-2006.

¶59

The issue can be understood better if Ext.R3 (a) staff fixation order for the subject year is looked into. It is to be specifically mentioned that the said staff fixation order has been issued after the Super Check Cell verification. A glance at the sanctioned posts would indicate that the fall in division occurred in the reduction of staff strength of one Social Science teacher. Hence, going by the decision in Rakhee

¶60

W.P.(C) No.28780/2005

¶61

-4-

¶62

(supra) the HSA (Social Science) had to be retrenched and not the petitioner herein. The petitioner, on the threat of retrenchment, had immediately filed the above writ petition and obtained an interim order permitting him to be continued as HSA (Maths) in the respondent school. Hence, the petitioner and the junior most HSA (Social Studies) were continued simultaneously. The petitioner's claim cannot be rejected, since it is sustainable,looking at the Staff Fixation Order and the binding decision of this Court, cited herein above. The fact that HSA (Social Studies) was not impleaded would not also stand against the petitioner, since it was for the Manager to make the adjustments in accordance with law, and he had been continued, by the Manager.

¶63

In such circumstance, the petitioner could not have been retrenched in the subject Academic Year. The Manager should have been

¶64

W.P.(C) No.28780/2005

¶65

-5-

¶66

cautious enough to see that the junior most in the respective subject in which the reduction occurred was retrenched and the petitioner retained. The Government definitely cannot be mulcted with the liability to salary of both the teachers. The Government should regularize the appointment of the petitioner in the Academic Year 2005-2006 and would also pay the salary to him and would initiate proceedings for recovery from the Manager as provided under Rule 7 Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959.

¶67

The writ petition is allowed. No Costs.

¶68

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶69

jjj 15/1/16

Santhosh Devassy v. Dy.Dir of Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh Devassy v. Dy.Dir of Education

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

Sudhakara Erumbala Vs Chief Security Commissioner, Rpf,Chennai

Jibi Susan Kurian Vs State of Kerala

V.N.Babu Vs the State of Kerala

The Manager, M.T.M. Higher Secondary School Vs State of Kerala

N.B.Sreedevi Vs the State of Kerala

The Executive Engineer & Others Vs Mini Jacob and Another