Writ petition by a Principal-in-charge challenging rejection of upgradation of an H.S.S.T (Junior) Malayalam post and seeking revised staff fixation based on 121 students. Court held the Shuja Baby decision relied on stood overruled by State of Kerala v. Seema; appointments made before sanction of the post could not ground mandamus after 14 years.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 22337 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:
ANJANA S., AGED 51 YEARS
PRINCIPAL(IN CHARGE), A.V.H.S KURICHI, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
SRI.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION(T) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.2 DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.3 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KOTTAYAM686001.4 CORPORATE MANAGER S.N.D.S TRUST, SIVAGIRI MUTT, VARKALA-695101.BY ADVS.
M.V.THAMBAN
R.REJI
ARUN BOSE
THARA THAMBAN
B.BIPIN
SUNEESH KUMAR R.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP SRI BIMAL K NATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09.04.2024, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
WPC 22337/2018
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner while working as the Principal-
in-charge of AVHS Kurichi, Kottayam has approached
this Court seeking the following reliefs:
“a.Call for the records leading to
the passing of Exhibit-P7 by the first
respondent and quash the same by issuing
a writ of certiorari or other
appropriate writ direction or order.
b.Issue a writ of mandamus or
other appropriate writ direction or
order directing respondents 1 to 3 to
declare that students strength during
the academic year 2007-2008 is
sufficient for upgrading the post of
H.S.S.T (Junior) Malayalam to H.S.S.T
Malayalam and modify the staff fixation
order accordingly within a time limit
fixed by this Hon’ble Court.”
2.By Ext.P1 order, the services of the
petitioner was regularised as H.S.S.T (Junior)
Malayalam with effect from 30.5.2007 to 14.7.2007.
According to the petitioner, the admitted strength
of students for Malayalam in standard XI in the
WPC 22337/2018
3
first year of Plus Two course is 121, for which
three batches with 18 periods of workload can be
allowed. Therefore, according to the petitioner,
one post of H.S.S.T is admissible. But only a
post of Junior H.S.S.T was sanctioned. By Ext.P2
appeal, the Corporate Manager brought to the
notice of the Director of Higher Secondary
Education the said discrepancy. By Ext.P3, a
staff fixation order was issued on 25.5.2010 by
sanctioning various posts, after taking notice of
the student strength. The petitioner contends
that the student strength in Ext.P3 staff fixation
order for the Malayalam division is noticed as
121. By Ext.P4, the appeal of the Corporate
Manager was dismissed finding that there is only
one student in excess of 120. Aggrieved by the
said order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6
revision petition before the 1st respondent, which
was also rejected by Ext.P7 order. It is
challenging Ext.P7 that the petitioner has
approached this Court.
3.The 3rd respondent has filed a counter
WPC 22337/2018
4
affidavit, in which it is specifically mentioned
that it was not prudent to recommend the
upgradation of H.S.S.T (Junior) Malayalam post to
H.S.S.T merely on the strength of one student.
Though the Manager appointed the petitioner as the
Principal w.e.f 30.5.2007 the same was rejected
for the reason that it was done even before
sanctioning of the post of H.S.S.T/H.S.S.T Junior.
4.The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit
in which the petitioner has produced Exts.P8, P9
and P10 orders, wherein the respondents are stated
to have sanctioned a post of H.S.S.T based on the
student strength being taken as 50, instead of 60
as done in this case.
5.I have heard Sri.M.Balagovindan, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Bimal
K.Nath, learned Senior Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would contend that based on Ext.P5
Government Order, it is possible that one
additional division to the language classes over
WPC 22337/2018
5
50 students with a margin of 10 students with
teachers in all Higher Secondary Schools in the
State, wherever it is necessary, to be sanctioned.
Therefore, according to the learned counsel for
the petitioner, since student strength is
admittedly 121, if a division of 50 students each
is sanctioned, then there will be one additional
division with a margin of more than 10 students
and, therefore, the staff fixation orders, which
are now standing in the way of the approval of the
petitioner as Principal could be revisited. He
also further relies on the decision of a learned
Single Judge of this Court in Shuja Baby v. State
of Kerala [2008 (1) KLT 230]. Therefore,
according to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Ext.P7 order is liable to be set aside
and the respondents are liable to be directed for
upgrading the post of H.S.S.T (Junior) to H.S.S.T
and modify the staff fixation order accordingly.
7.On the other hand, learned Senior
Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1
to 3 would contend that Ext.P7 order is perfectly
6
WPC 22337/2018
legal. According to the learned Senior Government
Pleader, the petitioner was appointed in the post
of Principal even before the post of Junior
H.S.S.T was sanctioned in the school and the same
was irregular and was reported to the Director.
Later, the post was upgraded with effect from
15.7.2008 to H.S.S.T Malayalam and the period from
30.5.2007 to 14.7.2007 was regularised as has now
been done under Ext.P7. Therefore, according to
the learned Senior Government Pleader, the orders
do not require any interference at the hands of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
8.When the rival submissions raised across
the bar were considered by this Court, especially
with regard to the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the
principles laid down by the learned Single Judge
in Shuja Baby (supra), that the staff fixation
order is liable to be revisited based on the
principles laid down in the said decision, this
Court takes note of the fact that the said
WPC 22337/2018
7
decision has been overruled by a Larger Bench of
this Court in State of Kerala v. Seema [2015 (1)
KLT 68]. In the light of the above, this Court is
not able to accept the proposition raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner based on the
judgment in Shuja Baby (supra) and accordingly,
the said contention is liable to be rejected.
9.Insofar as the challenge to Ext.P7 is
concerned, this Court cannot be oblivious of the
fact that the appointment of the petitioner was
made even before a post in H.S.S.T Junior
Malayalam was sanctioned. What has now been done
under Ext.P7 is regularisation of the period of
appointment of the petitioner from 30.5.2007 to
14.7.2007. It is to be noted that the staff
fixation orders were issued as early as on
25.5.2010. It does not appear from records and
the pleading produced before this Court that the
Corporate Manager, who is the 4th respondent, had
taken appropriate proceedings to question the same
at appropriate time. At any rate, at this point
of time, after a lapse of 14 years, the reason
WPC 22337/2018
8
stated in the writ petition does not impel this
Court to revisit the orders issued by the
Authorities fixing the staff strength in the
school under the 4th respondent Corporate Manager.
Admittedly, the petitioner’s appointment was at
the time when there was no sanctioned post of
H.S.S.T Junior. Therefore, the petitioner cannot
claim any benefit of the presence of 121 students
in the Malayalam subject at that point of time and
seek for a writ of mandamus to the respondents 1
to 3 to issue revised staff fixation orders and
sanction a post of H.S.S.T Malayalam with effect
from 2007.
In the result, the writ petition fails and
accordingly it is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
Sd/EASWARAN S. JUDGE
jg
WPC 22337/2018
9
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22337/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 |
TRUE COPYISSUED BYSECONDARY |
OF THE PRTHE DEPEDUCATION |
OCEEDINGS DATED 3-6-2017UTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER, |
|---|---|---|---|
EXHIBIT P2 |
TRUE COPYCORPORATESECONDARY |
OF THEMANAGER TEDUCATION |
APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THEO THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHERDATED 22-9-2014. |
EXHIBIT P3 |
TRUE COPYREGIONAL D |
OF THEPUTY DIR |
E PROCEEDINGS OF THEECTOR DATED 25-05-2010. |
EXHIBIT P4 |
TRUE COPYHIGHER SEC |
OF THEONDARY ED |
ORDER OF DIRECTOR OFUCATION DATED 21-10-2014 |
EXHIBIT P5 |
TRUE COPY28-03-1998 |
OF THE G. |
O 1341/98 G EDN. DATED |
EXHIBIT P6 |
TRUE COPYPETITIONER24-09-2016 |
OF THETO THE. |
REVISION FILED BY THEFIRST RESPONDENT DATED |
EXHIBIT P7 |
TRUE COPYRESPONDENT |
OF THEDATED 17 |
ORDER OF THE FIRST-08-2017. |
EXHIBIT P8 |
TRUE COPYDATED 12/0 |
OF ORDER5/2006 |
NO,ACD.B5-19898/2001/HSE |
EXHIBIT P9 |
TRUE COPYDATED 19.0 |
OF ORDER2.2007. |
NO.ACD.B5-19898/HSE/2001 |
EXHIBIT P10 |
TRUE COPY10 DATED 2 |
OF ORDER5.05.2010 |
NO.A2/6151/RDD/HSE/EKM/ |
EXHIBIT P11 |
TRUE COPYTHE MANAGE |
OF ORDERR DATED 1 |
OF APPOINTMENT MADE BY7.05.2007 |
EXHIBIT P12 |
TRUE COPY25.12.2019 |
OF TH(WITH EN |
E COMMUNICATION DATEDGLISH TRANSLATION) |
EXHIBIT P13 |
TRUE COPY(WITH ENGL |
OF THEISH TRANS |
REPLY DATED 16.1.2020LATION) |
WPC 22337/2018
10
RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT |
R3(a)TRUEYEARS |
COPY OF2007-08 |
STAFF FIXATIONTO 2009-10 |
ORDER FOR THE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
EXHIBIT |
R3(b)TRUENO.ACD |
COPY.B4/2620 |
OF LETTER F9/HSE/2015 DATED |
ROM DIRECTOR11.5.2017. |
EXHIBIT |
R3(c)TRUENO.A3/ |
COPY7208/RDD |
OFOFF.HSE/2014 DATED |
ICEORDER3.6.2017. |
EXHIBIT |
R3(d)TRUE21.10. |
COPY2014. |
OF REJECTION |
ORDER DATED |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the H.S.S.T (Junior) Malayalam post should be upgraded based on student strength of 121 for 2007-08.
Whether Ext.P7 order regularising the petitioner's appointment required interference under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shuja Baby v. State of KeralaOverruled
[2008 (1) KLT 230]
State of Kerala v. SeemaApplied
[2015 (1) KLT 68]
Anjana S.
Secretary to Government General Education (T) Department
Director of Higher Secondary Education
Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education
Corporate Manager, S.N.D.S Trust, Sivagiri Mutt, Varkala
Easwaran S.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court