Quashed

K.K Sreenivasan v. Director of Public Instructions

Kerala HC1 Jul 2024WP(C)/39356/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed orders rejecting the approval of a Craft Teacher appointment, holding that the Government Order in Ext.P7 restored the post in relaxation of rules and did not restrict it to the incumbent. The educational authorities were directed to reconsider the issue in light of the government order.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Exts.P1 and P6; directed 2nd respondent to reconsider the issue in light of Ext.P7 Government Order.

K.K Sreenivasan Vs Director of Public… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

¶2

MONDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY 2024 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶3

WP(C) NO. 39356 OF 2018

¶4

PETITIONER :

¶5

K.K SREENIVASAN AGED 68 YEARS

¶6

S/O. K.T.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, MANAGER, KOODALI UP SCHOOL, KOODALI – 670 592 BY ADVS. M.VIJAYAKUMAR K.A.SANJEETHA

¶7

RESPONDENTS :

¶8

1 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶9

2 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MATTANNUR, KANUR-670 702

¶10

3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY-670 101

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SR.GP-SRI. B. UNNUKRISHNA KAIMAL

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

W.P.(C)No.39356 of 2018

¶16

P.M.MANOJ, J.

¶17

---------------------------------------

¶18

W.P.(C)No.39356 of 2018

¶19

------------------------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of July, 2024

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The above writ petition is preferred by the Manager of an aided school. It is stated that the petitioner school appointed a Craft Teacher, against a retirement vacancy of one Mr.K.Vijayakumar, Craft Teacher, however, the educational authorities did not approve the appointment. The petitioner took up the matter for appellate remedy, which was also rejected. It is stated that the rejection of approval of appointment was on the reason that though a Craft Teacher post was sanctioned in the school, it was only for a limited purpose and the post of Craft Teacher cannot be granted, since the teacher, who was appointed as Craft Teacher retired from the post. It is contended by the petitioner that as per Ext.P7 the Government has considered this issue and, in the circumstances prevailing then, the post was sanctioned in relaxation of the Rules for the academic year 1989-90, and are still continuing.

¶22

On the strength of Ext.P7, it is argued that the post of Craft Teacher was sanctioned as early as in the year 1995. Another reason for

¶23

¶24

W.P.(C)No.39356 of 2018

¶25

the rejection of the approval of the post was that there was no sufficient student strength as stipulated under Rule 6B of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Act & Rules (KER), which specified the strength of students as not less than 500. It is further contended that as per Rule 3 of Chapter XXIII KER, the staff pattern is fixed for the aided schools on the basis of number of recognised class divisions and the period of work. Accordingly, under Rule 3(vii) KER a Craft Teacher is mentioned. With all

¶26

these assertions, it is contended that the post of Craft Teacher can be created based on the class periods.

¶27

3. A counter affidavit has been preferred by the 1^st respondent,

¶28

wherein it is specifically stated that by virtue of Government Order GO(Rt) No.2502/96/G.Edn. dated 30.07.1996, the school is entitled to have the post of Craft Teacher forever, irrespective of the number of pupils. On the other hand, the Government has amended Rule 6B Chapter XXIII of KER with effect from 1979 vide GO(P) No.189/2005/G.Edn. dated 17.06.2005. By such amendment, no post of any specialist teacher or Craft Teacher shall be allowed to continue in any Upper Primary School or Upper Primary Section of the High School except for the continuation of the qualified teachers, who were actually holding the said post, on the

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C)No.39356 of 2018

¶31

6^th day of March, 1979. It is further contended that the specialist teachers appointed in the Upper Primary Schools or Upper Primary Section of the High School after the 6^th day of March 1979, but before the 22^nd day of August 1989 and whose appointments for approval shall be allowed to continue as such, till their retirement, resignation, death or transfer and post of such specialist teachers shall be allowed to continue for their such continuance till they vacate the post. Thereby, on the retirement of one Vijayakumar, who was appointed with effect from 01.06.1989 and retired on 31.03.2016, the post of Craft Teacher was lost to the school.

¶32

I have heard Sri.M.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel for the

¶33

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶34

The counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice a judgment dated 01.04.2019 in W.A. No. 1529 of 2015, wherein the issue of Physical Education Teachers was considered. On going by the judgment, this Court noticed that the facts of this case are entirely different. In that case, a supernumerary post of Physical Education Teacher was created to accommodate the existing teacher, whereas in the case on hand, a Craft Teacher was already permitted to continue as

¶35

per Ext.P7 order by the Government. That was in compliance with the

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C)No.39356 of 2018

¶38

directions of the judgment in O.P.No.10667 of 1995 by the then incumbent to the post of Craft Teacher – Sri.K.Vijayakumar.

¶39

On considering Ext.P7 it appears that Government has considered the matter on a detailed examination wherein it is stated that Sri.Vijayakumar was appointed as Craft Teacher in Koodali UP School with effect from 01.06.1994. Prior to that, from 1989 to 1990, the Government has restored the post in relaxation of the existing rules and ordered to approve the appointment of Sri.Vijayakumar with effect from 01.06.1989 as per Government Order, GO(Rt) No.1276/92/G.Edn. dated 08.04.1992. At that point of time, while sanctioning the post by the Government, the student strength was less than 500. It was also considered that the post of Craft teacher was in existence in the school prior to 1969-70 and no other specialist teacher was existing in the school. On detailed examination of these factors, it was decided to restore the posts in relaxation of the existing rules by the Government. It is also discernible that the restoration of the post of Craft Teacher is not for a limited period. In accordance with that, the Assistant Educational Officer has sanctioned the post in 1992-93. It is pertinent to note that the Government has found in Ext.P7 that the circumstances under which the post was restored

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C)No.39356 of 2018

¶42

in relaxation of rules in 1989-90 are still continuing. In the final paragraph of Ext.P7 order it is specifically stated that the Craft Teacher’s post was restored in relaxation of the existing rules and will continue in Koodali UP School. Thereby Government has not restricted the existence of post on the basis of any conditions stipulated in Rule 3 of Chapter XXIII.

¶43

On a reading of the last paragraph of the aforementioned Government Order it is discernible that the post was sanctioned to the school by the Government in relaxation of the existing rules. The sanctioning of the post was given to the school not to protect any particular incumbent. Thereby, the post of Craft Teacher will exist even after the retirement of Sri.Vijayakumar, who retired on 31.03.2016. Hence the petitioner made the appointment of Sri.Nishad K.V. against the resultant vacancy of Craft Teacher on the retirement of Sri.Vijyakumar. The said appointment was not approved by the AEO as per Ext.P1 order. It appears that such rejection is against the spirit of Ext.P7 order issued by the Government. Hence such order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned Ext.P1, P6 orders cannot stand the test of law as the intention behind the issuance of Ext.P7 order has not been considered by respondents 2 and 1. Under such circumstances, Exts.P1 and P6 are set

¶44

¶45

W.P.(C)No.39356 of 2018

¶46

aside, and the 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider the issue in the

¶47

light of Ext.P7 Government Order.

P.M.MANOJ JUDGE

ttb

W.P.(C)No.39356 of 2018

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39356/2018

¶53

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS :

¶54

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 27.2.2017 EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REVISION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11.1.2018 EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DETAILED ARGUMENT NOTES WAS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DATED 11.10.2018 EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.R.A(3)/53905/2018/DPI/ DDIS. DATED 22.10.2018 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.2502/96/G.EDN.DATED 430.7.96 RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.RA(3)53905/2018/DPI DATED 22.10.2018.

K.K Sreenivasan v. Director of Public Instructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K Sreenivasan v. Director of Public Instructions

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

Sooraj. M Vs the State of Kerala

Lasitha. K. Vs the Authorized Officer

The Secretary, Vs State of Kerala

Dominic K. Felix Vs State of Kerala

Alavi Haji Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Unnikrishnan K.V Vs State of Kerala