Remanded

Ditty Tom P. v. Assistant Educational Officer

Kerala HC29 Mar 2016WP(C)/2947/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Assistant Educational Officer to consider the petitioner's claim for continuation and promotion, accounting for staff strength, relinquishments, and the disqualification of senior teachers for insufficient experience or qualification under specific school rules.

What did the court decide?

Directed the AEO to consider the issue regarding continuation and promotion within one month of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

Ditty Tom P. Vs Assistant Educational Officer — 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

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/9TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

W.P.(C).No.2947 of 2016 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

DITTY TOM P., AGE: 36 YEARS, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, ST.THOMAS UPPER PRIMARYSCHOOL, PARANNUR, CHOONDAL P.O., KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶10

ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR.

¶11

DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD.

¶12

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE MANAGER ST.THOMAS UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, PARANNUR, CHOONDAL P.O., KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

DENNY DAVID. K.. HEADMASTER IN-CHARGE, ST.THOMAS UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, PARANNUR, CHOONDAL P.O., KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

R1 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ. R5 BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶17

SMT.PREETHI KESAVAN

¶18

R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No.2947 of 2016 (P)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶23

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 12.06.2015, ISSUED BY THE MANAGER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST PUBLISHED BY THE MANAGER AS ON 01.01.2015.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DATED 26.07.2005.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DATED 26.07.2005.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF RELINQUISHMENT LETTER ISSUED BY SMT.P.A.REENA.

¶28

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF RELINQUISHMENT LETTER ISSUED BY SMT.JAISY K.P.

¶29

EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF RELINQUISHMENT LETTER ISSUED BY SMT.SHEEJA S., THEKKEKARA.

¶30

EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.06.2015 TO THE A.E.O. ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS SUHC AS STATEMENT OF CHARGE DECLARATION.

¶31

EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)15841/2013.

¶32

EXHIBIT P10. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.2693/2015.

¶33

EXHIBIT P11. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2015, ISSUED BY ANTO T.JOSEPH.

¶34

EXHIBIT P12. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE A.E.O. DATED 17.12.2015.

¶35

EXHIBIT P13. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.12.2015 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶36

EXHIBIT P14. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.12.2015 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶37

¶38

WP(C).No.2947 of 2016 (P)

¶39

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.8957/2015 DATED 20.03.2015.

¶40

EXHIBIT P16 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.E.O., KUNNAMKULAM DATED 16.10.2015.

¶41

EXHIBIT P17 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MANAGER DT.12.6.2015.

¶42

EXHIBIT P18 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL 1674/2008 DATED 21.03.2014.

¶43

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶44

NIL.

¶45

Vku/[ true copy ]

¶46

K. Vinod Chandran, J --------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.2947 of 2016-P

¶47

¶48

Dated, this the 29^th day of March, 2016.

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

The controversy in the above writ petition arose due to

¶51

the change of management, as is evident from Exhibit P12. The petitioner is said to be the daughter of the erstwhile Manager who was continuing on the basis of Exhibit P9 order of this Court. The writ petition, however, was dismissed; against which the petitioner's father had filed a Writ Appeal, which also stood dismissed. On the basis of the declaration that the 4^th respondent in Exhibit P10 is entitled to be the Manager, Exhibit P12 order dated 17.12.2015 was passed. The order also approved the Manager retrospectively from 05.06.2013. The controversy is insofar as the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Headmistress made on 12.06.2015.

¶52

The petitioner's contention is that the post of Headmistress fell vacant on 31.05.2015 and the senior-most teacher Sheeja was appointed as Teacher-in-Charge. By Exhibit P7, the senior-most teacher relinquished her claim. Exhibits P5

¶53

WP(C) No.2947 of 2016

¶54

¶55

and P6 were also relinquishment made by other senior teachers. As to the seniority between the petitioner and the 6^th respondent, the 6^th respondent is admittedly senior to the petitioner. However, he does not have the test qualification as prescribed under Rule 45B of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 [for brevity “KER”].

¶56

The 6^th respondent contends that there is no vacancy of Upper Primary School Assistant [for brevity “UPSA”] to accommodate the petitioner and further the petitioner does not have 12 years experience as mandated under Rule 18 of the Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 [for brevity “RTE Rules”].

¶57

As to the non-existence of a vacancy, the petitioner admittedly was deployed as Block Resource Centre Co-ordinator in the previous academic year, which was challenged by the then Manager. The writ petition went in favour of the Manager and the petitioner was re-called to the school. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was also upheld by the Division Bench in Exhibit P18 judgment. The petitioner's contention is that, on that basis the

¶58

WP(C) No.2947 of 2016

¶59

¶60

petitioner is entitled to be continued in the school even in the academic year 2015-16.

¶61

These are all matters which have to be considered by the Assistant Educational Officer [for brevity “AEO”], who shall look into the staff strength sanctioned for the year 2015-16. It is made clear that if the staff strength does not permit the petitioner to be continued, then necessarily the petitioner would have to be deployed elsewhere and then the senior-most would have to be granted the charge of the post of Headmaster. In that circumstance, willingness would have to be called for by the Manager, of all the senior teachers, before the AEO deciding the issue of a teacher being placed “In-Charge”. If the petitioner is entitled to continue as per the staff fixation orders, then necessarily there would be a question of who would be preferred among the petitioner and the 6^th respondent, if the other senior teachers relinquish the post of Teacher-in-Charge. Admittedly both the petitioner and the sixth respondent, as of now is dis-entitled to be posted as Head Master, the former for reason of not having the required experience and the latter the required qualification.

¶62

WP(C) No.2947 of 2016

¶63

¶64

In the context of the petitioner being disqualified insofar as experience as provided under the RTE Rules and the

¶65

6^th respondent is disqualified for reason of the non-acquisition of qualification under the KER, the senior-most would have to be posted as Teacher-in-Charge. Even then, the minute either of the teachers qualify, both (either) on the aspect of test qualification and experience, then the Teacher-in-Charge would have to give way for regular appointment of the qualified hand.

¶66

The writ petition would stand disposed of, directing the AEO to consider the issue in the light of the directions hereinabove, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

¶67

Sd/K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶68

vku/-

¶69

[ true copy ]

Ditty Tom P. v. Assistant Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ditty Tom P. v. Assistant Educational Officer

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

M.Abdul Lathif Vs State of Kerala

T.C.Krishna Varma Raja Vs v.C.Kerala Varma Raja

State of Kerala Vs R.Rajapppan Pillai

Ditty Tom Vs Sachidanandan

Krishnan K.V Vs P.Marykutty

G.Suma Vs State of Kerala