Allowed

Sindhu B. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2024WP(C)/18341/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A teacher appointed in 2010 challenged rejection of approval from that date; the court found Ext.P9 did not examine whether a protected teacher was available when she was appointed, quashed it, and directed reconsideration with a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P9 quashed; first respondent directed to reconsider petitioner's request for approval from 01.06.2010 after hearing petitioner and manager, within three months.

Sindhu B. Vs the State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

W.P.(C) NO.18341 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SINDHU B., AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. HARILAL, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM), VAYANAKAM VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NJARAKKANAL, OACHIRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 533. BY ADVS.

¶8

V.A.MUHAMMED M.SAJJAD

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶13

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM-691 013.

¶14

5 THE MANAGER, VAYANAKAM VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NJARAKKANAL, OACHIRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 533.

¶15

SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. BIMAL K. NATH

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAS COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.09.2021, THE COURT ON 12.07.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC. 18341/2021

JUDGMENT

( Dated: 12^th July, 2024)

¶21

The petitioner was appointed as HSA (Malayalam) by the 5^th

¶22

respondent from 01.06.2010 against the retirement vacancy of Smt.P.K.Suchetha, who retired on 31.03.2010. Ext.P1 is the appointment order. The approval of the petitioner from 01.06.2010 was declined by the DEO/4^th respondent vide Ext.P2 letter No.B2/4403/08 dated 10.09.2009. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the rejection before the 3^rd respondent, but the same was rejected, stating that though the petitioner was appointed with effect from 01.6.2010, the approval was granted

¶23

only on 01.06.2011 by including her in the “Teacher’s Package”.

¶24

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointments before 01.06.2011 could be granted only with the permission of the Government. The approval of the petitioner from

¶25

01.06.2010 was declined, relying on G.O.(P) No.317/2005/G.Edn.

¶26

¶27

WPC. 18341/2021

¶28

dated 17.08.2005. The ban was lifted by order dated 07.01.2010, and it is ordered to approve the appointments effected during the period of ban on condition that the Manager executes a bond agreeing to fill up the ensuing vacancies with an equal number of protected teachers. Later by G.O.(P) No.154/2014/G. Edn. dated 11.08.2014, Kerala Education Rules was amended to the effect that teachers of aided schools included in the appended list of G.O.(P) No.199/11/G.Edn. dated 01.10.2011 stands approved with effect from 01.06.2011 on condition that the District Educational Officers shall ensure that they are appointed against the regular vacancies and otherwise qualified. It was also made clear that the prior service will not be reckoned for any service benefits and will be deemed a new service. This was interfered with by this Court in Kerala Aided L.P. & U.P. School, Kollam v. State of Kerala and Another [ILR 2016(1) Ker. 590] . Against the rejection of the petitioners for approval from 01.06.2010, the petitioner approached the Government and this Court in W.P.(C) No.27314 of 2020 by Ext.P8

¶29

¶30

WPC. 18341/2021

¶31

judgment directed the representation of the petitioner to be taken

¶32

and to be disposed of the same giving an opportunity of hearing of

¶33

the petitioner and also the manager of the school and to pass appropriate orders within three months. In compliance with the said directions, Ext.P9 is passed on 02.06.2021, rejecting the petitioner’s request for approval from 01.06.2010.

¶34

The petitioner challenges Exts.P2, P3, and P9 in this writ

¶35

petition and declares that the petitioner is entitled to get approval for her appointment from 01.06.2010 onwards.

¶36

A counter affidavit is filed by the 4^th respondent in which it is admitted that the 5^th respondent appointed the petitioner as HST Malayalam from 01.06.2010 in the retirement vacancy of one

¶37

P.K. Sujetha, HST (Malayalam), who retired on 31.03.2010. The rejection was because the school comes under the category of newly open schools, and the 5^th respondent has not absorbed as protected teachers, which was directed as per G.O.(P) No.46/2006/

¶38

General Education dated 01.02.2006. One

¶39

¶40

WPC. 18341/2021

¶41

Smt.K.S.Chandramathiyamma ‘Protected Teacher’ HST (Malayalam)

¶42

with the respondent school was rendered surplus as per staff

¶43

fixation 2010-11 and was deployed to Government High School,

¶44

Thodiyoor.

¶45

Heard counsel on either side.

¶46

The Protected Teacher joined the 5^th respondent school

¶47

only on 02.01.2012. The petitioner was included in the teacher’s

¶48

package, her appointment was approved on 01.06.2011. The sum

¶49

and substance of the contentions raised in the counter affidavit is

¶50

that since the manager has not appointed a protected hand in the

¶51

school, the petitioner’s approval cannot be given effect from 01.06.2010 onwards.

¶52

A reading of the counter affidavit does not disclose that

¶53

as of the date of appointment of the petitioner in the vacancy of HST

¶54

(Malayalam), there was a ‘Protected Teacher’ in

¶55

Malayalam. Therefore, the reasoning stated in Ext.P9 that the petitioner’s approval can only be from 01.06.2010 onwards is

¶56

¶57

WPC. 18341/2021

¶58

without looking into the fact as to whether a protected teacher was

¶59

available as on that date. Therefore, Ext.P9 has to be interfered with, and I do so.

¶60

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P9 is quashed. Resultantly, the 1^st respondent is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner as ordered by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as

¶61

well as the manager, and pass final orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy

¶62

of the judgment.

¶63

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶64

Sd/- BASANT BALAJI,

JUDGE

WPC. 18341/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18341/2021

¶70

PETITIONER EXHIBITS:

¶71

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1.6.2010.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B2/4403/08 DATED 10.9.2009 OF THE DEO, KOLLAM ADDRESSING THE MANAGER, WITH TYPED COPY.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B3/4250/16/K.DIS DATED 3.11.2016 OF THE DDE, KOLLAM ADDRESSING THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2290/2015 DATED 25.7.2017.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2090/2018 DATED 28.6.2019.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.18858/2020 DATED 15.9.2020.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.60930/J2/11/G.EDN. DATED 25.10.2011.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.27314 OF 2020 DATED 8.12.2020.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.2912/2021/G.EDN. DATED 2.6.2021.
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER OF THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2010-11 VIDE NO.B2/6752/10/D.DIS DATED 30.8.2010 ISSUED BY THE DEO, KOLLAM.
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR NO.J2/57/2019/G.EDN. DATED 8.3.2019.
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN NADEERA T.S. AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [2011 (3) KHC 650 ] DATED NIL.
Exhibit P-13	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C) NO. 5182/2024 DATED 09.02.2024
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R4(a)	True copy of Lr.No.B2/4686/10 of the 4th respondent to the 5th respondent

Sindhu B. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sindhu B. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.N. Dinoop, Vs Jamal Mohammed

Venugopalan V.V. Vs Baiju Mon K.P

Liquidator Vs Venugopalan V.V.

Anil Vasu Vs the Village Officer

N.v.Kareem Vs the Divisional Railway Manager

George P.T Vs State of Kerala