Remanded

Thara.B.S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Aug 2020WP(C)/12985/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner teacher challenged posting of a senior teacher as administrative head, claiming seniority based on earlier guest lecturer tenure and prior judicial directions. Court instructed respondent to reconsider petitioner's appeal and representation including service weeks. Pending decision, current senior teacher to remain in charge.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to consider petitioner's representation/appeal with notice; till decision, seniormost teacher to be in charge.

Thara.B.S Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

WP(C).No.12985 OF 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.12985 OF 2020(W)

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

THARA.B.S NON-VOCATIONAL TEACHER (MATHEMATICS) DEVI VILASOM VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MYLOM,MYLOM.P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691560.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.V.BHARGAVI (PANANGAD) SMT.P.A.RINUSA

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶14

3 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM-691008.

¶15

4 THE MANAGER, DEVI VILASOM VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,MYLOM,MYLOM.P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691560.

¶16

5 USHAKUMARI.A.G, NON VOCATIONAL TEACHER(PHYSICS),DEVI VILASOM VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,MYLOM, MYLOM.P.O,KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT-691560.

¶17

WP(C).No.12985 OF 2020

¶18

¶19

6 BINU JOACOB.P, NON VOCATIONAL TEACHER(ENGLISH), DEVI VILASOM VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,MYLOM,MYLOM.P.O,KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691560.

¶20

BY ADV. SMT.SINDHU SANTHALINGAM BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV RAJADHANI BY ADV. SRI.A.D.SHAJAN

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

SRGP.SRI.ARAVINDHA KUMAR BABU

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C).No.12985 OF 2020

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Dated this the 14^th day of August 2020

¶28

Petitioner, who is a Non-Vocational teacher (Mathematics) in the 4^th respondent's school, is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order by which the 6^th respondent is posted as the Administrative Head of the school.

¶29

The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Non-Vocational teacher in the 4^th respondent School with effect from 20.10.1997 has been working as such ever since the date of starting non-vocational courses in the School. It is stated that the 5^th respondent also was appointed on the very same day; but the 6^th respondent who is given appointment as Administrative Head as per Ext P7 order was appointed only on 19.03.1999 overlooking the seniority of the petitioner as well as the 5^th respondent. Though the 5^th respondent is senior to petitioner, since she does not claim the post of Administrative Head, the petitioner who is the next senior claimant is challenging the same. The petitioner points out that seniority between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent was determined on the basis of Ext.P1 judgment in favour of the 5^th respondent as the 5^th respondent is older than petitioner. In Ext.P1 judgment this

¶30

Court directed to consider the dispute regarding seniority between petitioner and the 5^th respondent seeing that petitioner

¶31

¶32

WP(C).No.12985 OF 2020

¶33

as well as the 5^th respondent had commenced service as Guest Lecturers in the very same School with effect from 20.10.1997 and they commenced regular service also on the very same date 19.03.1999. It is stated that regular appointment of the petitioner and that of the 5^th and 6^th respondent was on 19.03.1999; but the 6^th respondent started working as as Guest Lecturer in the School only with effect from 16.11.1998. It is stated that pursuant to Ext P1 judgment, the inter-se seniority between petitioner and 5^th respondent was determined as per Ext P2 order. The petitioner points out that she had submitted Ext.P3 representation requesting the Manager to prepare a seniority list of teachers reckoning the seniority from the date of entry as guest lecturer. But the Manager as per Ext.P4 rejected her request stating that there is no order to calculate guest service to regular service. Manager informed that the 6^th respondent who was appointed on 19.03.1999 is the next senior most in the school having 24 hours of weekly working hours subjectwise. As against Ext.P4 the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 04.04.2020 before the 2^nd respondent requesting to direct the Principal to incorporate her approved service as Guest Lecturer in the service book and to direct the Manager to publish a seniority list and to appoint a Principal from that seniority list. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court in WP(C) No.10017/2020 and by Ext.P6 judgment dated 20.05.2020 this Court directed the 2^nd respondent to consider the

¶34

¶35

WP(C).No.12985 OF 2020

¶36

said representation with notice to the parties. Ext.P7 order appointing the 6^th respondent was issued on 25.06.2020 stating that the same would be subject to the decision to be taken on the complaint of the petitioner. The petitioner points out that Ext.P7 order was issued without issuing a gradation list with notice to teachers and without taking a decision considering the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment.

¶37

The 6^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit

¶38

producing Ext R6(a) seniority list in which she is placed senior to petitioner and the 5^th respondent. It is stated that the appointment of the petitioner as well as respondents 5 and 6 on regular basis was made on the very same day and as the date of birth of 6^th respondents falls before the date of birth of the petitioner, she is assigned seniority above the petitioner. It is also stated that this Court has in Ext R6(b) judgment in W.A.No.1423/2012 held that seniority should be counted only from the date of appointment as a senior teacher or from the date on which a junior teacher became a senior teacher. According to her the seniority is to be determined in accordance with Ext R6(c) order issued on 03.11.2012 and the claim of petitioner for seniority or promotion is not admissible as per Ext R6(b) judgment or Ext R6(c) order. According to the 6^th respondent she is having more working hours than the petitioner and the 5^th respondent and she is the person eligible for promotion as Adminstrative head.

¶39

¶40

WP(C).No.12985 OF 2020

¶41

The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating that the seniority list was not circulated to her and that the same is not approved by the 2^nd respondent and hence cannot be considered for promotion. It is stated that Ext.6(b) judgment was already reviewed, which is evident from Ext.P8 judgment and in that judgment this Court has considered the claim of nonvocational teachers who were appointed prior to the introduction of the Special Rules and whose services were regularised as nonvocational teachers from the date of their initial appointment and held that they are entitled to inclusion in the seniority list and consequential appointment as administrative head in accordance with their seniority as non-vocational teacher without reference to their workload.

¶42

The learned Senior Counsel for 6^th respondent points out that the said judgment refers to those who were appointed in 1991-1992 and whose services were later regularised and would not apply to the petitioner. However petitioner points out that in view of the judgment-Ext.P1 seniority of the petitioner vis a vis the 6^th respondent is also to be determined with reference to the service rendered by them as Guest Lecturer and in that event

¶43

the petitioner would be entitled to be posted as the Administrative Head. It is also stated that the question whether the number of hours of workload should be considered for the purpose of seniority is also considered in Ext.P8 judgment.

¶44

The petitioner has also got a case that Ext.R6(a)

¶45

¶46

WP(C).No.12985 OF 2020

¶47

seniority list in which respondents 5 and 6 have signed on 13.05.2019, was not furnished to the petitioner and her signature is not obtained and it is on the basis of such seniority list that Ext.P7 order has been passed. As against the same petitioner has also submitted Ext.P9 appeal before the 2^nd respondent.

¶48

In such circumstances, there shall be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in Ext.P5 representation and Ext P9 appeal with notice to the petitioner, Manager as well as respondents 5 and 6. Till a decision is taken, the seniormost teacher shall be directed to be in charge as the Administrative Head. A decision shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

rkc

WP(C).No.12985 OF 2020

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX

¶55

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶56

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 04.02.2016 IN R.P.N.974/2012 AND WP(C)NO.28906/2005 AND CONNECTED CASES.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E3/12103/2016.DATED 16.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14.02.2020.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 04.04.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.05.2020 IN W.P(C)NO.10017/2020.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E3/2661/2020 DATED 25.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.11.4.17 IN WPC NO.30588/17
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 6/7/2020
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R6(a):	A TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS ON 01/04/2020.
EXHIBIT R6(b):	A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WA.NO.1423/2012 DATED 10/09/2012
EXHIBIT R6(c):	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER E3/15845/12 DATED 03/11/2012 OF THE VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY DIRECTOR.
EXHIBIT R6(d):	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/08/1999 OF THE DIRECTOR, VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

Thara.B.S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thara.B.S v. State of Kerala

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

Ajeesh Kumar M., Vs Dr.D.Girija

Kuthuparamba Educational Society, Vs State of Kerala

K.B.Nizam Vs Jeevan Babu K. I.A.S.

Dr.M.v.Suresh Vs Director of Collegiate Education

K.Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

Dr.M.v.Suresh Vs State of Kerala