Disposed

E.a.Sugatha Kumar v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jun 2016WP(C)/8109/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a school manager, challenged the reduction of school divisions due to inspection findings. The Court held that applicability of the 1:40 ratio for leave substitutes requires reconsideration by respondents based on a cited Circular, directing them to pass orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to reconsider petitioner's claim on retention of leave substitutes applying 1:40 ratio pursuant to Circular No.9697/J2/99/G. Edn. dated 24.03.1999 and pass orders within three mon

E.a.Sugatha Kumar Vs the State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/17TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 8109 of 2013 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

E.A.SUGATHA KUMAR, AGED 57 YEARS,

¶8

S/O.APPU, MANAGER, SREE NARAYANA VILASAM UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, THALIKKULAM, VLAPPPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI. V.A.MUHAMMED

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

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

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 014.

¶13

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR AT AYYANTHOLE- 680 003.

¶14

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 506.

¶15

5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VALAPPAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 567.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Msd.

¶19

WP(C).No. 8109 of 2013 (K)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2008-2009 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 31/07/2008. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DATED 07/05/2009.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SC-93/08-09/KKD DATED 08/09/2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 10/10/2009. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G/1774/09 DATED 07/11/2009 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 35135/2009-J DATED 07/12/2009 OF THIS HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 18687/2012-I, DATED 08/08/2012. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 09/11/2012. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.) NO. 5977/2012/G.EDN. DATED 14/12/2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.V.ASHA J.

--------------------------------------------------

¶31

W.P.(C) No.8109 of 2013

¶32

--------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2016

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The petitioner, who is the Manager of the Sree Narayana Vilasam Upper Primary School, Thalikkulam, which is an aided School governed by the provisions contained in Kerala Education Rules, 1958 ('KER' for short)

¶35

has filed this writ petition challenging the reduction of divisions consequent to the inspection by the Super Check Cell.

¶36

In the Staff fixation for the year 2008-2009, the total number of divisions and posts sanctioned for the School was 31 each with the break of 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5 and 6 respectively for standards I to VII. The Super Check Cell conducted an inspection and by Ext.P2 letter of the Director of Public Instructions, it was found that there were 179 bogus admissions. Consequent to this, a show cause notice with proposal for revision of staff fixation proceedings of the School, reducing the divisions from 31 to 23 was issued to the Manager. It was found that one

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C) No.8109 of 2013

¶39

division in standards I, II, IV, VI and VII and 2 divisions in standard III were liable to be reduced. Consequent to that 5 posts of LPSA and 3 posts of UPSA were to be abolished with effect from 15.07.2008. Even though, the petitioner submitted his explanation, the Director of Public Instructions issued Ext.P3, confirming the proposal.

¶40

The petitioner has raised several contentions as against the reduction of divisions by the Super Check Cell, pointing out that 1:40 ratio was not made applicable while reducing the divisions in standards II and VII. It is pointed out that in case the ratio was applied there would have been one more division for standards II and VII. It is also pointed out that in Ext.P3 order itself, the Director of Public Instructions had ordered that the Deputy Director of Education (DDE), Thrissur and the Assistant Educational Officer (AEO), Valapad would examine the eligibility of protection including 1:40 ratio and extend the benefits to the affected teachers. Petitioner states that AEO did not extend that benefit of 1:40 while issuing the consequential order Ext.P5 for certain divisions. At the same time, the

¶41

W.P.(C) No.8109 of 2013

¶42

¶43

ratio was applied to Standards V and VI. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Circular No.9697/J2/99/G. Edn. dated 24.03.1999 asserting that 1:40 ratio can be applied in favour of the leave substitutes also.

¶44

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it was stated that 1:40 ratio was applied wherever it was admissible. It was only against posts held by leave substitutes, the ratio was not applied. As per the staff list of the School, 7 teachers were on Leave Without Allowances. Hence the ratio cannot be applied for retaining the leave substitutes.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶46

Learned Government Pleader submitted that the ratio of 1:40 between the teacher and pupils cannot be applied when the teachers are on Leave Without Allowance and leave substitutes cannot be retained applying the ratio.

¶47

I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶48

W.P.(C) No.8109 of 2013

¶49

¶50

and the learned Govt Pleader. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on Circular No.9697/J2/99/G. Edn. dated 24.03.1999 and asserts that 1: 40 ratio is applicable even

¶51

for retaining leave substitutes. As per the Counter affidavit no such benefit is available to them.

¶52

On consideration of rival contentions, I am of the view that it is a matter to be considered by the respondents whether 1:40 ratio is applicable or not, to the leave substitutes with reference to the Circular relied on by the petitioner. In case the Circular No.9697/J2/99/G. Edn. dated 24.03.1999 continues to be in force, the respondents shall consider the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the said Circular and pass orders thereon within a period of 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶53

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶54

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶55

AS/07/06/16

E.a.Sugatha Kumar v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.a.Sugatha Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Gopinathan Vs Pension Board

Ismail Putteyakat Vs Kerala State Electricity Board & 6 Ors.

Divya Vijayan Vs Mathew Joy

Fr.Jolly Thappalodath Vs the Mookkannur Grama Panchayath

~.G.Mohanakumar Vs Sasthamcotta Co-Operative Agricultural

C.v.Babu Vs the Fertilisers and Chemicals