Dismissed

C.C. Aboobacker v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jan 2021WP(C)/29096/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking declaration of entitlement to reappointment under Rule 51A of Kerala Education Rules. The Court held that amended Rule 7A(3) and Apex Court precedent negate the petitioner's claim due to a tenure less than one academic year.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; finding in Exhibit P8 upheld as not vitiated by patent illegality.

C.C. Aboobacker Vs the State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.29096 OF 2020(J)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

C.C. ABOOBACKER AGED 50 YEARS

¶8

PARAMBIL HOUSE,NEDIYIRUPP P.O, MUSLIYARANGADI,CHOAMUKK,MALAPPURAM-673638,(FORMER LPSA,AMLP SCHOOL, KLARIPUTHUR).

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY,TRIVANDRUM-14.

¶13

3 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TANUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676302.

¶14

4 MANAGER,AMLP SCHOOL, KLARIPUTHUR,P.O.KURUGA, MALAPPURAM-676551.

¶15

GP SMT.NISHA BOSE

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0501-2021, THE COURT ON 11-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C).No.29096/2020

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 11^th day of January 2021

¶21

1.The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶22

“i a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside Exhibit P8 in so far as it deny the petitioner the benefit of Rule 51A of Kerala Education Rules.

¶23

ii.declare that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment in the next arising vacancy in the 4^th respondent school.”

¶24

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

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was a Rule 51A claimant and that the rejection of that claim by the Government is untenable. The petitioner submits that he had been appointed as LPSA for the period from 1.1.2003 to 30.4.2003, the said appointment was not approved. Thereafter, Ext.P8 the Government directed the approval of the said appointment. However, since the petitioner did not seek appointment when vacancies arose on 18.8.2005, 5.6.2006 and 10.12.2007 and since the initial

¶26

W.P.(C).No.29096/2020

¶27

¶28

appointment was only for two months, the contention that he was entitled for preferential claim for reappointment was rejected.

¶29

I have considered the contentions advanced. By virtue of the amendment carried out to the provisions contained in Rule 7A (3) as well as under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A KER and has held in the judgment of the Apex Court in Manager, VKNM Vocational Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala and others (2016 (1) KHC 430), the petitioner ceased to have any statutory right under Rule 51A. Subsequent to the amendment in 2005, a teacher with approved service for a period less than one year will not have any right for reappointment under Rule 51A. This position is laid down by the Apex Court reversing the decision of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Jayasree K. v. State of Kerala and Other [2014 (4) KHC 280).

¶30

Having considered the contentions, I find that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in which it is categorically held

¶31

W.P.(C).No.29096/2020

¶32

¶33

that in order to have a claim under Rule 51A, the teacher should have approved service for not less than one academic year, in tune with the amended provisions contained in Rule 7A(3) and Rule 51A. The petitioner, who was appointed for a period of two months, would have no preferential claim after the amendment, even if the appointment is approved.

¶34

6.In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the finding in Ext.P8 to the effect that the petitioner cannot raise a claim under Rule 51A even if his appointment is approved cannot be found fault with. The question with regard to relinquishment of appointment by the petitioner is therefore irrelevant. I am of the opinion that there is no patent illegality vitiating Ext.P8 order.

¶35

The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶38

sj/5/1/2021

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 15.07.2005
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE RELINQUISHMENT LETTER (UNDATED)
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF RELINQUISHMENT DATED 09.08.2003.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY RECEIPT ALLEGEDLY ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO(RT)NO.1140/2011/G.EDN DATED 22.03.2011
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.01.2019 IN WP(C)NO. 13018 OF 2012 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶42

True Copy

¶43

PS to Judge

C.C. Aboobacker v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.C. Aboobacker 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

NO.905223 B Sergeant Pp Prince Hq Southern Air Command (Unit) Vs Union of India

Jyolsna G., Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Unnikrishnan Vs the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (Supplyco Ltd.)

Aviation Industry Contractual Employees Association Vs Chairman and Managing Director

Zaheena, Vs the Assistant Chief Accounts Officer (Pen)

Neethi O.T. Vs State of Kerala