Dismissed

S.Sindhu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Aug 2023WP(C)/1370/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This division bench dismissed a writ petition filed by a music teacher seeking approval of her service continuations for years 1995-96 to 1999-2000 based on Government Orders. The court held that since no official approval of her appointment was granted for the period 1995-2000, she could not claim benefits under pertinent G.Os.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; reliefs sought in the writ petition not granted.

S.Sindhu Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THURSDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 1370 OF 2016

¶3

PETITIONER:

¶4

S.SINDHU AGED 48 YEARS MUSIC TEACHER, VICTORY, GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM

¶5

RESPONDENTS:

¶6

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 14.

¶8

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION KILLIPALAM, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM 36 4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. 5 THE MANAGER VICTORY GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD

¶9

OTHER PRESENT:

¶10

SMT. MARY BEENA JOSEPH -SR.GP

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

..2..

¶13

WP(C) No. 1370 of 2016

¶14

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

¶15

WP.(C) No.1370 of 2016

¶16

Dated this the 17^th day of August, 2023

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The brief facts leading to the filing of

¶19

the writ petition are as follows:-

¶20

1.1 The petitioner was appointed as Music

¶21

Teacher in the Victory Boys High School, Nemom with effect from 31.7.1992 and she continued upto the academic year 1993-94. On 13.8.1993, the post

¶22

of Music Teacher was abolished, which was challenged before the educational authorities and before the Government and was dismissed against the petitioner. Thereafter, she filed O.P.No. 27404 of 2001 before this court and the same was also dismissed. She filed W.A.No.1712 of 2007 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge

¶23

and as per the judgment, the petitioner was

¶24

WP(C) No. 1370 of 2016

¶25

..3..

¶26

entitled to get the benefit of revising the staff fixation orders for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95 and it was ordered that the post of Music Teacher shall be sanctioned for the school for the academic years 1993-94 and 1994-95. In the said judgment of the Division Bench of this court, the sanctioning of post of Music Teacher for the subsequent years was refused in view of the amendment to the Rules to the effect that the second post in the cadre was permissible for the year 1995-96, if only there are 26 periods for Art subjects (Music and drawing).

¶27

1.2 Pursuant to the judgment of this

¶28

Court, the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Educational Officer for the period from 15.7.1993 to 14.7.1995 and her appointment for the years 1995-96 to 1999-2000 was declined on the ground that 26 periods of Art subjects were not available.

¶29

WP(C) No. 1370 of 2016

¶30

..4..

¶31

1.3 The Government, after consideration of Ext.P11 representation, passed Ext.P15 order rejecting the claim of the petitioner stating that the petitioner's appointment was not approved during 1995-96, as well as the subsequent years on the basis of the Government Orders and further stating that there was no sanctioned post of Music Teacher in both Victory Boys High school and Victory Girls High School

¶32

during the years 1995-96 and subsequent years till 2000-01. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court with the above writ petition.

¶33

2. Heard the learned counsel for the

¶34

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶35

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of filing the earlier writ petition, the petitioner was not aware about Exts.P6 to P9 Government Orders, which clearly

¶36

WP(C) No. 1370 of 2016

¶37

..5..

¶38

state that all the posts of Specialist teachers in High School classes existing during 1995-96 against which qualified hands have been appointed and whose appointments have been approved will be allowed to continue during the academic year 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000

¶39

notwithstanding the orders issued in G.O(P) No.525/95/G.Edn. dated 28.10.1995.

¶40

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner

¶41

further submits that the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of Exts.P6 to P9 Government Orders and she was not aware of the issuance of those orders and when she knew about the Government Orders, she filed R.P.No.512/2010 in W.A.No.1712/2007 and on the basis of the direction in the review petition, the petitioner

¶42

has approached the Government by way of Ext.P11 representation. It is the further case of the petitioner that since the Government Order

¶43

WP(C) No. 1370 of 2016

¶44

..6..

¶45

amending Rule 6(4) of the Kerala Education Rules had been brought into effect only from the academic year 1996-97, she cannot be denied approval for the years 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1999-2000. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding in Ext.P15 order that the petitioner was working in a nonexistent post from 15.7.1995 onwards till 2000 in Victory Boys High School and Victory Girls High School, is incorrect and groundless. It is also submitted that her appointment for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95 were approved on the basis of Ext.P4 judgmnet because of the existence of the post of Music teacher. The Government Order dated 28.10.1995 amending Rule 6(4) of the Kerala Education Rules has no application and whatever position, which existed during 1994-95, should continue for the subsequent year also, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶46

WP(C) No. 1370 of 2016

¶47

..7..

¶48

5. Learned Government Pleader, on

¶49

instructions, submits that the petitioner ought to have been availed claim based on Exts.P6 to P9 Government Orders at the time of filing the earlier writ petition and since these claims were not raised in the earlier writ petitions, the petitioner is estopped from raising such claims in a fresh writ petition. The learned Government Pleader further submits that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the benefit of Exts.P6 to P9 Government Orders, which very clearly states that all posts of Specialist teachers in High School classes existing during 1995-96 against which qualified hands are being appointed and whose appointments are approved will be allowed to continue during the academic year 1996-97 and also subsequent years. It is further submitted that it is clearly stated in the Government Orders that o nly those teachers,

¶50

..8..

¶51

WP(C) No. 1370 of 2016

¶52

whose appointments have been approved will be allowed to continue during the current academic year and since the petitioner's appointment was not approved after 1994-95, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit of Exts.P6 to P9 Government Orders.

¶53

6. I have carefully considered the

¶54

arguments raised on both sides.

¶55

7. On the basis of the judgment in

¶56

W.A.No.1712 of 2007, the petitioner's appointments for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95 were directed to be sanctioned for the academic years 1993-94 and 1994-95. Thereafter, claiming the benefit of Exts.P6 to P9 Government Orders which were not raised at the time of filing of the earlier writ petition, the petitioner filed

¶57

review petitions and as per the order in R.P.No.512/2010 directing the petitioner to work

¶58

out the remedy before the educational

¶59

WP(C) No. 1370 of 2016

¶60

..9..

¶61

authorities, the petitioner has filed Ext.P11 representation before the Government, seeking to approve her appointment for the years 1995-96 to 1999-2000 in continuation of the years 1993-94 and 1994-95. Thereafter, in Ext.P15 order dated 29.10.2015, it is very clearly stated that the petitioner was working in the Victory Boys High School till 27.10.1997 and was transferred to the Victory Girls High School, where also there was

¶62

no post of Music Teacher since 1994-95. The petitioner had been continuing in that school although her appointment was not approved and salary not paid. It was only during 2000-01, after the retirement of the Drawing Teacher that the post of Drawing Teacher was converted to Music teacher at the request of the Manager and the appointment of the petitioner was approved from 17.7.2000 onwards. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner was continuing in the school where

¶63

WP(C) No. 1370 of 2016

¶64

..10..

¶65

there was no post of Music Teacher and the appointment of the petitioner was also not approved.

¶66

8. For reference, one of the Government Orders Ext.P6 reads as follows:-

¶67

“In the Government Order read above, it was clarified, among other things, that the second part of specialist teacher in the Art groups (that is,Music teacher) or a post in the craft group will be sanctioned only when the periods under each group become 26 periods and above.

¶68

It has been brought to the notice of Government that the implementation of the orders read above will result in the abolition of a large number of posts of specialist teachers in High School classes during the current academic year, that is 96-97. Government have therefore reviewed the position and are pleased to order that all the posts of specialist teachers in High School classes existing during 95-96 against which qualified hands have been appointed and whose appointments have been approved will be allowed to continue during the current academic year, that is, 96-97 notwithstanding the orders issued in the Government Order read above so as to enable the incumbents to continue in service during 96-97 also.”

¶69

On a perusal of Ext.P6, it is stated that all the

¶70

WP(C) No. 1370 of 2016

¶71

posts of Specialist teachers in the High School classes against which qualified hands are appointed and whose appointments have been approved will be allowed to continue during the academic year relating to the concerned Government Order. The petitioner also does not have a case that her appointment was approved from 1995-96 to 1999-2000. Since there is nothing on record to show that the appointment of the petitioner was approved for the years 1995-96 to 1999-2000, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of the Government Order now relied on by the petitioner.

¶72

9. Ext.P15 order passed by the Government

¶73

does not suffer any infirmity and I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to

¶74

get any reliefs as sought for in the writ petition.

¶75

WP(C) No. 1370 of 2016

¶76

..12..

¶77

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶78

Sd/-

¶79

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN,

¶80

JUDGE

¶81

MBS/

¶82

WP(C) No. 1370 of 2016

¶83

..13..

¶84

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1370/2016

¶85

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶86

P1- TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 31.7.1992 P2- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.7.1991 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP NO.3041/1991 P3- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.3.2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP NO.3041/1991 P4- TRUE OCPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.3.2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP NO.26404/2001 P5- TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.B3/2625/08/D DIS. DATED 10.8.2009 OF THE D.E.O NEYYATTINKARA P6- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.196/96/G.EDN DATED 3.7.1996 P7- TRUE COPY FO THE G.O(MS) NO.2557/97/G.EDN DATED 25.7.1998 P8- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.2965/98/G.EDN DATED 28.7.1998 P9- TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.3324/G.EDN DATED 16.7.1999 P10-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.12.2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RP NO.512/2010 IN W.A.NO1712/2007 P11- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.3.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT P12- TRUE COPY OF HTE DUTY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE,R NEYYATTINKARA IN CONNECTION WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF THE PETITONER IN THE MUSIC TRI ORCHESTRA TRAINING CENTRE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 20.10.1997 TO 23.10.1997 P13- TRUE COPY OF HTE DUTY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL

¶87

WP(C) No. 1370 of 2016

¶88

..14..

¶89

OFFICE,R NEYYATTINKARA IN CONNECTION WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF THE PETITONER IN THE MUSIC ORCHESTRA TRAINING CENTRE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 26.8.1997 TO 28.8.1997 P14- TRUE COPY OF HTE DUTY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE,R NEYYATTINKARA IN CONNECTION WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF THE PETITONER IN THE CHILDRENS DAY CELEBRATION FOR THE PERIOD FROM 13.11.1997 TO 14.11.1997 P15- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.5078/2015/G/EDN DATED 29.10.2015

S.Sindhu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sindhu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asokan C.D Vs State of Kerala

P.M.Abdul Razak Vs Moonniyur Grama Panchayath

M/S. Granite Queen Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Cochin Bearing Center Vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Shafeer Vs Alamcode Grama Panchayat

Ajikumar Vs Chempoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.202