Disposed

M.S.Jini v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Feb 2019WP(C)/36937/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the refusal to regularize a school teacher's appointment. It directed the Government to reconsider the appointment status based on specific circulars regarding student strength benchmarks after providing an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of directing the Government to reconsider the petitioner's appointment after a hearing within three months based on specified circulars.

M.S.Jini Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 25TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 36937 of 2015

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M.S.JINI AGED 41 YEARS WIFE OF VINOD KUMAR, OFFICE ATTENDANT, SNUP SCHOOL, KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645

¶13

4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KONNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 691

¶14

5 THE MANAGER SNUP SCHOOL, KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 693

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C) No.36937/2015

¶18

-2-

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant in

¶21

the 5^th respondent U.P. School with effect from 1.11.2012, as per Ext.P1 appointment order. Initially, the Assistant Educational Officer and the Deputy Director of Education refused to approve the petitioner's appointment and later, the petitioner's appointment was approved on daily wage basis from 1.11.2012 to 31.3.2013. The writ petition is filed challenging the orders to the extent they limit approval granted to the petitioner, as mentioned above. The further prayer in the writ petition is for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to get salary on scale of pay basis and for a direction to the 4^th respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶23

W.P.(C) No.36937/2015

¶24

-3-

¶25

that the only reason for not approving the petitioner's appointment on regular basis was that the U.P. School, in which the petitioner got appointment, was an uneconomic school (presently termed as, a school, without the prescribed student strength). It is submitted that, even going by the circulars in this regard issued by the Government from time to time, the school in which the petitioner was appointed could not have been termed as an uneconomic school. Reference is made to Circular No.58604/J2/12/G.Edn dated 6.11.2012, wherein the Government had, in clarification of its earlier circulars, proceeded to prescribe the bench mark for treating a school as one without the prescribed student strength. As per the Circular, U.P. schools would be considered, as one without sufficient student strength, if the total student strength of all the classes (V to VII) put together is below 45. It is therefore contended that since,

¶26

W.P.(C) No.36937/2015

¶27

-4-

¶28

even going by Ext.P7 staff fixation order for the year 20102011, the school had total student strength of 60 for classes V, VI and VII, the authorities could not have treated it as an uneconomic school and that consequently, the appointment of the petitioner ought to have been approved on regular basis and not on casual wage basis, as has been done through the impugned orders.

¶29

The learned Government Pleader refutes this contention and points out that Circular No.58604/J2/12/G.Edn dated 6.11.2012 was again clarified by the Government vide Circular No.951951/J2/16/G.Edn dated 9.11.2016. That, it is specified in Circular No.951951/J2/16/G.Edn dated 9.11.2016 that appointment on daily wage basis can be effected in schools with a class average of less than 15. It is therefore contended that irrespective of the total number of students in a UP school, if

¶30

W.P.(C) No.36937/2015

¶31

-5-

¶32

the students in a particular class is less than 15, then that

¶33

school is bound to be treated as a school without sufficient student strength. It is therefore contended that the impugned orders are in tune with the circulars issued by the Government and hence not liable to be interfered with.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is an apparent dichotomy between the aforementioned two circulars and that, when the total strength in a school is above what is prescribed in the 2012 circular, the fact that the student strength in one of the classes is less than 15 cannot be a ground for considering the school to be a school without the prescribed student strength. It is also pointed out that appointments of various persons in schools with total student strength of more than what is prescribed in 2012 circular has been approved on regular basis, in spite of the fact that in some of the classes in

¶35

W.P.(C) No.36937/2015

¶36

-6-

¶37

those schools, the student strength was less than 15.

¶38

In the light of the submissions made by the

¶39

learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and on a perusal of Circular No.58604/J2/12/G.Edn dated 6.11.2012, as clarified vide Circular No.951951/J2/16/G.Edn dated 9.11.2016, I deem it appropriate that the Government re-consider the issue, with respect to the contention of the petitioner that the school in which she was appointed, had sufficient student strength and therefore, her appointment ought to have been approved on regular basis. The learned Government Pleader points out that while affecting such consideration, the Government should take into consideration the student strength for the subsequent years also.

¶40

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Government to reconsider Ext.P6 order and pass fresh

¶41

W.P.(C) No.36937/2015

¶42

-7-

¶43

orders, on the basis of Circular No.58604/J2/12/ G.Edn dated 6.11.2012, as clarified by Circular No.951951/J2/16/G.Edn dated 9.11.2016, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed and order passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶45

Scl/29.2

¶46

W.P.(C) No.36937/2015

¶47

-8-

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01-11-2012

¶51

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25-05-2013

¶52

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15-10-2013 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21-07-2014

¶53

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 28-07-2015

¶54

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 12-06-2015

¶55

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 06-08-2010.

¶56

EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF SRI.K.S. GIRISH KUMAR DATED 02-12-2013

¶57

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER No.60930/J2/11/G.Edn. DATED 25.10.2011.

¶58

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.3895/2010 DATED 23.1.2015.

M.S.Jini v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.Jini 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.P.Wilson Vs Kalady Grama Panchayath

Tholur Hamsa Vs State of Kerala

Pathuthara Hussain Haji Vs the Porur Grama Panchayath

Rashid.P Vs Regional Transport Authority

Mohanan.a Vs Suresh

Pathumma Vs District Collector