Partly allowed

Abhijith P. v. the Asst.Educational Officer, Alathur

Kerala HC10 Feb 2017WP(C)/3095/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Sanskrit teacher challenged orders denying Group C diversion benefits for his 2011-12 appointment and questioned his qualification for the post. The Court found Group C diversion withdrawn after 2010-11 but validated the petitioner's qualification. It directed appointment approval and payment of consequential benefits from the appointment date.

What did the court decide?

Appointment as part-time Sanskrit teacher approved with effect from 01.06.2011; consequential benefits to be calculated and disbursed within three months.

Abhijith P. Vs the Asst.Educational Officer, Alathur — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/21ST MAGHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3095 of 2013 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

ABHIJITH P., SANSKRIT TEACHER, AIDED UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOLPERINKULAM, PERINKULAM P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 541.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD-688 001.

¶12

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

¶13

4. THE MANAGER, AIDED UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL-PERINKULAM, PERINKULAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 542.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

WP(C).No. 3095 of 2013 (J)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXHIBIT-P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER.
EXHIBIT-P2:	TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 16.12.2011.
EXHIBIT-P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.12.2009 IN WRIT APPEAL NO.333/08.
EXHIBIT-P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 26.11.2010.
EXHIBIT-P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) 43/78/G.EDN DATED 13.04.1978.
EXHIBIT-P6:	TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT) 5608/12/G.EDN DATED 27.11.2012.
EXHIBIT-P7:	TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) 220/10/G.EDN DATED 04.11.2010.
EXHIBIT-P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR NO.13652/32/11/G.EDN DATED 23.03.2011.
EXHIBIT-P9:	TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER OF ACADEMIC YEAR 2011-12.
EXHIBIT-P10:	A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SCHOOL LEAVING EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE FROM THE GOVERNMENT ORIENTAL HIGH SCHOOL, EDATHANATTUKARA.
EXHIBIT-P11:	A COPY OF THE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT-P12:	A COPY OF G.O(RT.)NO. 1036/12/G.EDN DATED 03.03.2012.
EXHIBIT-P13:	A COPY OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD, DATED 28.07.2010.
RESPONDEN	T(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶25

W.P.(C) No.3095 of 2013

¶26

Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2017

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶29

i) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Exhibit P2 and Exhibit P6 orders issued by respondents 1 and 3;

¶30

ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as full-time Sanskrit Teacher with effect from 1-6-2011 onwards.

¶31

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Sanskrit Teacher in the 4^th respondent's school from 01.06.2011. The previous incumbent in the post had died on 31.08.2008. It is submitted that the post was a full time post on Group C diversion while previous incumbent was holding it. By Ext.P3 judgment, it had been held that the previous incumbent would be entitled to full

¶32

W.P.(C) No.3095/2013

¶33

¶34

time benefits by applying Group C diversion.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Group C diversion for Sanskrit had been made available by Ext.P5 Government Order dated 13.04.1978. It is further submitted that Ext.P7 Government Order dated 04.11.2010 only cancels the Government Order dated 13.11.2000 granting the facility of Group C diversion to teachers for the academic year 2010-2011 only. It is submitted that the Government Order dated 04.11.2010 does not even refer to Ext.P5 Government Order and

¶37

the benefits granted by Ext.P5 have not been recalled. It is therefore contended that Ext.P6 Government Order issued rejecting the claim raised by the petitioner for Group C diversion on the basis of Ext.P7 Government Order is illegal and unsustainable.

¶38

Learned Government Pleader had filed a counter affidavit contending that the benefit of Group C diversion stood recalled by Government Order dated 04.11.2010. It is clearly stated therein that the benefit of diversion would be applicable only upto the

¶39

W.P.(C) No.3095/2013

¶40

¶41

year 2010-2011. It is therefore contended that since the petitioner had been appointed on 01.06.2011 in the academic year 2011-2012, he would not be entitled to the benefit of Group C diversion.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of interim order dated 28.05.2013 directing the educational authorities to consider the approval of appointment of the petitioner as part time Sanskrit Teacher, no such orders have been issued and the petitioner has also not been paid salary.

¶43

However, learned Government Pleader would submit that approval had initially been granted pursuant to the interim order. The same had been kept in abeyance in view of the query raised

¶44

as to the sufficiency of the qualification possessed by the petitioner for appointment to the post of part time Sanskrit Teacher.

¶45

An additional counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3^rd respondent contending that the petitioner has the qualification of SSLC and Pre Degree with Sanskrit in Part II and that as per Rule 3(2) of Chapter XXXI KER, a title of Oriental learning in Sanskrit awarded or recognised by anyone of the Universities in Kerala is an essential qualification for appointment

¶46

W.P.(C) No.3095/2013

¶47

¶48

to the post. It is therefore contended that the petitioner's qualification not being as per Rules, his appointment was not approved and salary was not paid to him.

¶49

The petitioner has produced the certificates showing his qualification along with reply affidavit as Exts.P10 and P11. It is clear that he had passed SSLC from the Government Oriental High School, Edathanattukara with Sanskrit as first language in Papers I and II. He has also produced Ext.P12 Government Order dated 03.03.2012 where the issue of qualification has been specifically considered by the Government. While considering the qualification for appointment as full time Sanskrit Teacher, the Government held as follows:

¶50

“The Petitioner has passed SSLC from Oriental school. The Padasala Sanskrit school is a notified oriental school with Sanskrit is the only language paper in Part I and Part II. There is no separate school leaving certificate for oriental language as referred to R.3 of Chapter XXXI KER. Those who did SSLC in oriental High School with sanskrit as Paper I and II are said to have acquired the oriental school leaving certificate and several teachers are working with the above qualification without any objection.

¶51

W.P.(C) No.3095/2013

¶52

¶53

Oriental school certificate is sufficient for a Sanskrit teacher in the UP Section”.

¶54

Petitioner has also produced Ext.P13 reply given under the Right to Information Act to show that the school from which he acquired his SSLC certification was Sanskrit Oriental School and that therefore the qualification acquired by him is sufficient for appointment as part time Sanskrit Teacher.

¶55

I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. It is clear from a reading of Ext.P7 order that what was intended was recalling of the benefit of Group C diversion for treating part time posts of language teachers as full time. Though Ext.P5 order has not been specifically referred to in Ext.P7, a reading of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Government Order dated 04.11.2010 would make it abundantly clear that the intention was to withdraw the benefit of Group C diversion from the academic year 2011-12 onwards. No exemption of any nature is provided in the Government Order dated 04.11.2010. It is also to be noticed that all part time language teachers who

¶56

had completed five years of service and who are teaching eight periods per week had already been granted the full time benefit.

¶57

W.P.(C) No.3095/2013

¶58

¶59

In the above view of the matter, I am constrained to hold that Ext.P7 order recalls the benefit of Group C diversion available till 2010-2011. Such Group C diversion would therefore be inapplicable from 2011-2012. This is the inescapable conclusion on a plain reading of Ext.P7. In the above circumstances, challenge against Exts.P6 and P7 orders is found to be not sustainable. However, since the petitioner, going by Ext.P12 order of the Government, is fully qualified for appointment to the post of Sanskrit teacher, it is directed that his appointment as part time Sanskrit teacher be approved with effect from 01.06.2011. Necessary orders shall be passed by the competent among the respondents within a period of two months

¶60

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All consequential benefits shall also be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶63

smp

Abhijith P. v. the Asst.Educational Officer, Alathur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhijith P. v. the Asst.Educational Officer, Alathur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sambhu R Vs K.v.Shaji

K.S.Sheela Beegam Vs Sreekantan Nair

Roymnon.N. Vs Priincipal, St. Gregorious College

V.Indira Devi Vs the State of Kerala and Others

M.R.Suresh Babu Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Smt.T.P.Radhamony Vs the State of Kerala