Kerala High Court
Babu Syriac vs The State Of Kerala on 3 July, 2025
2025:KER:48494
W.P.(C).No.39899 of 2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 39899 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
BABU SYRIAC
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.P.J.KURIAN, DRAWING TEACHER,
ST.MICHAEL'S HIGH SCHOOL, KAVIL, P.O.PATTANAKKAD,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
ALAPPUZHA-688001.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688524.
5 THE CORPORATE MANAGER
ARCHDIOCESAN CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF
ERNAKULAM -ANGAMALY, RENEWAL CENTRE, KALOOR,
KOCHI-682017.
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV RASHMI K M, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:48494
W.P.(C).No.39899 of 2015
2
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.39899 of 2015
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a drawing teacher working in an aided school under the 5th respondent management from 3.9.2012 with approved appointment. Grievance of the petitioner is regarding denial of approval of appointment from 4.6.1996 to 22.12.1996 and from 15.7.2003 to 2.9.2012 while he was working in another school under the same management.
2. Petitioner was appointed from 4.6.1996 as drawing teacher in a retirement vacancy in SMSJ High School, Thycattussery. Stating the reason that there were only 20 periods both for Art and Crafts group and there was a protected music teacher in the high school section of the school, the post of drawing teacher was abolished by the Deputy Director of Education. Statutory petitions were preferred against abolition of the post. However, the Director of Public Instruction and 2025:KER:48494 W.P.(C).No.39899 of 2015 3 Government rejected the petitions. Petitioner contends that post of drawing teacher existed in the school, but was abolished by Ext.P2 order dated 23.12.1996. Relying on Rule 12-C(3) of Chapter XXIII of KER, the petitioner contends that the order abolishing the post came to effect only on 23.12.1996 and hence he is entitled to get approval for his appointment from 4.6.1996 to 22.12.1996.
3. During 2000-01, the post of drawing teacher was allowed and the petitioner's appointment was approved from 5.6.2000. Later, during 2003-04, the post of drawing teacher was again abolished on the ground that the periods available for Art were less than 5 as it was reduced to 4½. This is disputed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, there were more than 5 periods available for Art and post of drawing teacher was to be sanctioned for various academic years from 2004 to 2011. Government in the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent contended that during the year 2003-04, in the petitioner's school, there were only three divisions each in standards VIII 2025:KER:48494 W.P.(C).No.39899 of 2015 4 and IX and hence only 4½ periods were available for Art group for which no post of drawing teacher was admissible. Though as per the relevant Government Order, one period available under Art group and Craft for standard IX can be allotted either to the Art group or to the Craft group, a protected needle work teacher was also working in the school and hence ½ period available to the Craft group in standard IX was utilized for the retention of the said teacher who was senior in service to the petitioner. Therefore, only 4½ periods were available for drawing and hence no post was admissible to the school as contended by the petitioner. Further it is pointed out that during 2004-05, 2005- 06, 2006-07 also the periods available for drawing was below 5. It is further stated by the Government that only two divisions each were sanctioned to standard VIII and IX to the school for the year 2007-08. Though the pupils strength in standard IX was 87 which warranted sanctioning of third division if teacher- pupil ratio of 1:40 was applied, nonetheless the ratio can be applied only for retention of a teacher with approved 2025:KER:48494 W.P.(C).No.39899 of 2015 5 appointment and working against their regular sanctioned post in the previous year who was rendered surplus. As the petitioner was not working in a regular sanctioned post in the previous year, sanctioning of third division applying 1:40 ratio was not permissible. Moreover, one protected needle work teacher was already working in the school. Same situation continued in 2008-09 and 2009-10 also. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not refuted the above germane facts stated by the 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit by filing a reply affidavit.
4. The petitioner has pointed out Ext.P9 order dated 8.6.2009 issued by the Government restoring the post of music teacher in another school on the basis of the request made by a teacher whose appointment was not approved. Petitioner pleads that similar treatment ought to have been extended to the him also. However, it is clear from Ext.P9 that in the case considered by the Government 1½ periods from Craft could also be taken and added to 4½ periods available for Art group in the 2025:KER:48494 W.P.(C).No.39899 of 2015 6 high school section and thus more than 5 periods could be ensured for Art group. However, situation in the petitioner's school was different as explained by the Government in their counter affidavit and only 4 ½ periods were available for Art group. Therefore, petitioner cannot rely upon Ext.P9 to advance his case.
5. The Government had considered the grievance of the petitioner in the statutory revision petition and passed an order rejecting the same after detailed consideration of the facts and circumstances. Except with respect to the claim regarding the period of service from 4.6.1996 to 23.12.1996, I do not find any reason to differ with the reasons given by the Government for refusing approval in view of the foregoing discussion. I find merit in the contention that Ext.P2 order, abolishing the post was issued only on 23.12.1996. When the petitioner was appointed with effect from 4.6.1996, an approved post of drawing teacher was available. Appointment of the petitioner was against a retirement vacancy. In view of Rule 12-C(3) of 2025:KER:48494 W.P.(C).No.39899 of 2015 7 Chapter XXIII of KER, abolition of the post can be deemed to have come to force only with effect from 23.12.1996. Therefore the period of service of the petitioner from 4.6.1996 to 22.12.1996 deserves to be approved.
6. Hence, this writ petition is partly allowed by directing the respondents to grant approval for the appointment of the petitioner as drawing teacher from 4.6.1996 to 22.12.1996 with consequential benefits. Requisite steps shall be taken by the respondents in compliance with the above direction within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
S.MANU JUDGE skj 2025:KER:48494 W.P.(C).No.39899 of 2015 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39899/2015 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Ext.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 1996- 1997 DT.3-9-1996.
Ext.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION DT.23-12-1996.
Ext.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DT.5-5-1997.
Ext.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.4546/97/G.EDN.
DT.23-12-1997 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Ext.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION DT.11-11-1997.
Ext.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DT.5-6-2000 AND APPROVAL THEREON. Ext.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.525/95/G.EDN.
DT.28-10-1995 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Ext.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2003-2004 DT.15-7-2003.
Ext.P8(a): TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2004- 2005 DT.12-7-2004.
Ext.P8(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2005- 2006 DT.25-7-2005.
Ext.P8(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2006-2007 DT.31-7-2006.
2025:KER:48494 W.P.(C).No.39899 of 2015 9 Ext.P8(d) : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2007-2008 DT.16-11-2007.
Ext.P8(e) : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2008- 2009 DT.7-2-2009.
Ext.P8(f) : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2009- 2010 DT.3-11-2009.
Ext.P8(g) : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2010- 2011 DT.9-9-2010.
Ext.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.2252/2009/G.EDN.
DT.8-6-2009 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Ext.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.95/2009/G.EDN DT.5-1-2009 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Ext.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.5099/2013/G.EDN.
DT.28-11-2013 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Ext.P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.2596/2015/G.EDN.
DT.29-6-2015 OF THE GOVERNMENT.