Kerala High Court
Sharin V John vs The State Of Kerala on 9 July, 2025
W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 26863 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
SHARIN V JOHN, AGED 34 YEARS,
WIFE OF JOHNSON PETER, ASSISTANT TEACHER, C.S.I.
VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THIRUVALLA - 689
101, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA - 689 101.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 101.
5 THE MANAGER
C.S.I. VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL OF DEAF,
THIRUVALLA - 689 101, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015
2
6 SMT.MARY JOHN
ASSISTANT TEACHER, C.S.I. VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL FOR DEAF, THIRUVALLA - 689 101, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT.
*ADDL R7 ANIE THOMAS
W/O ANIL P JACOB, PALATHUMKAL HOUSE, NEDUMGADAPPALLY
P.O., KOTTAYAM, 686545 (ASSISTANT TEACHER ( HIGHER TIME
SCALE), CSI VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL FOR THE
DEAF, THIRUVALLA.)
*(ADDL R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.02.2017 IN
IA 1852/17)
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SRI.S.A.ANAND
SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
SHRI.K.A.BALAN
SHRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
SMT.K.N.REMYA
SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR
SMT.N.SANTHA
SHRI.K.SANDESH RAJA
SRI.V.VARGHESE
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV SAJJAD M
ADV RASHMI K M, SR.GP
ADV.S.SUBHASH CHAND,
ADV.V.VARGHESE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015
3
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.26863 of 2015
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
Following reliefs are sought in this writ petition:
"(i) call for the records relating to Exhibits P-3 and P-6 and set aside the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.
(ii) declare that the seniority list is to be maintained separately for Assistant teachers on higher time scale of pay and Assistant Teachers for lower time scale of pay.
(iii) declare that the Petitioner is senior to the 6th Respondent and entitled to continue in service in preference to the 6th Respondent.
(iv) declare that the Petitioner is entitled to be accommodate against the post of Assistant Teachers on higher time scale of pay and the 6 th Respondent is entitled to be accommodated against the post of Assistant Teachers for lower time scale of pay.
(v) pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case."W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015
4
2. Ext.P3 is a communication from the Secretary, General Education Department, Government of Kerala dated 04.08.2014 addressed to the 5 th respondent - Manager, directing that the instruction issued by the 4 th respondent for appointing the 6th respondent in a regular vacancy shall be implemented urgently. Ext.P6 is a Government Order dated 13.08.2015 issued by the Government in a review petition filed by the petitioner herein.
3. Briefly stated, the dispute is regarding inter se seniority of the petitioner and the 6 th respondent. The following tables would show spells of service up to 2019 of the petitioner and the 6th respondent:-
Sherin V John 28.07.2003 to Leave vacancy 16.10.2004 approved 01.06.2005 to Leave vacancy 20.08.2007 approved 18.10.2006 to Leave vacancy 20.08.2007 approved 21.08.2007 to Temporary 22.02.2010 promotion vacancy 01.07.2008 approved W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015 5 onwards (14.07.2010) Regular vacancy approved 15.07.2010 to Leave vacancy 22.02.2015 approved (paid salary till 31.08.2014) 23.02.2015 to Leave vacancy not approved 22.08.2017 15.07.2017 to BRC 19.06.2018 20.06.2018 to Leave vacancy 21.06.2019 approved 06.06.2019 Regular vacancy onwards approved Mery John 19.10.2000 to Leave vacancy 02.03.2001 and in Manakkala 17.07.2001 to school 24.10.2001 03.09.2002 to Leave vacancy 30.03.2003 approved.
15.07.2003 to Leave vacancy 14.10.2004 approved.
15.10.2004 to Leave vacancy 22.02.2005 approved.
23.02.2005 to Leave vacancy 20.08.2007 approved.W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015
6 21.08.2007 to Leave vacancy 14.06.2011 approved.
15.06.2011 to Leave vacancy
21.06.2016 approved, paid
up to
14.07.2012
22.06.2016 to Leave vacancy
21.06.2019 not approved
15/07/17 BRC
04.10.17 Leave vacancy
19.06.2018 approved.
20.06.2018 to Regular
31.03.2019(retire vacancy
d) approved.
4. CSI Vocational Higher Secondary School for Deaf is governed by Ext.P5 Government Order dated 22.11.1979. The said Government Order envisages two distinct categories of Assistant Teachers in Special Schools, one with higher time scale and other with lower time scale. Qualifications prescribed for the two categories are different. Petitioner was appointed in the category having higher pay scale and the 6 th respondent was in the category having the lesser pay scale. Petitioner claimed that those who are appointed in the higher pay scale shall be considered as seniors than those who were appointed W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015 7 in the lower scale of pay. This claim was considered by the Government in Ext.P6. Government observed that in none of the orders pertaining to Special Schools, any decision was taken for following separate seniority list for the Assistant Teachers according to the pay scale. Government further observed that only a single seniority list is maintained for the Special Schools. Government noted that the 6 th respondent entered service in the year 2000 and the petitioner joined service much later. Plea of the petitioner for treating her as senior to the 6th respondent was found untenable by the Government. Hence the petitioner approached this Court in the above writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.
5. Sri.Sajjad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed against a regular vacancy much before the 6 th respondent was so appointed. He submitted that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the category having a higher scale of pay and, in view of the provisions of Rules 34 and 37 of Chapter XIV(A) of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 ('KER' for brevity), the W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015 8 seniority of Assistant Teachers in the category having a higher scale of pay ought to have been separately fixed. Those belonging to the category having a lower scale of pay were liable to be placed below them. The learned counsel asserted that the provisions of KER would apply to Special Schools also and pointed out that Rule 1 of Chapter II of KER specifically mentioned schools for special education . He also made reference to the observation by Government in Ext.P9 order dated 06.10.2010 in a revision petition filed by an Assistant Teacher of the same school. Government observed in Ext.P9 that as the qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher on higher time scale and Assistant Teacher on lower time scale are different, separate seniority lists are to be maintained for each category. He hence submitted that the impugned orders were improper and illegal and thus liable to be set aside by this Court. Learned counsel further submitted that the declarations sought in the writ petition are liable to be granted.
6. Smt.Reshmi K.M, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the decision taken by the Government in W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015 9 Ext.P6 was made after analysing all relevant aspects. She submitted that there is no stipulation in any Government orders governing special schools that separate seniority list shall be maintained for the Assistant Teachers depending upon their scale of pay. She contended that the 6 th respondent was appointed much earlier compared to the petitioner and undoubtedly she was senior to the petitioner in service. She therefore, justified the decisions taken by the Government reflected in Exts.P3 and P6.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the 6 th respondent
- Sri.V.Varghese contended that the claims of the petitioner were totally untenable. He submitted that the 6 th respondent was appointed in a leave vacancy in another school under the same management initially on 19.10.2000 whereas, the initial appointment of the petitioner in a leave vacancy in the school at Thiruvalla was only on 28.07.2003. He submitted that the provisions of KER are not applicable to special schools and this aspect was properly noticed by the Government in Ext.P2. In the said order, Government specifically stated that the KER has W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015 10 not been made applicable in the case of special schools in the State. Ext.P5 Government Order dated 22.11.1979 and other executive orders issued by the Government from time to time govern matters relating to appointment of staff etc., in special schools. He asserted that two categories of teachers are appointed in the special schools taking into account the peculiar requirements of such schools. He contended that the observation in Ext.P9 regarding maintaining special seniority list for each category was only a mistake made by the officer who passed the order. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner who was found to be junior to the 6 th respondent however, was appointed against a regular vacancy with effect from 01.07.2008 whereas, the 6th respondent was accommodated in a regular vacancy only with effect from 20.06.2018. He submitted that the 6 th respondent, being senior was entitled to be appointed in the regular vacancy which became available on 01.07.2008 in preference to the petitioner and the said illegality is to be rectified. He prayed for dismissal of the writ petition, as according to him, none of the reliefs W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015 11 sought are liable to be granted.
8. Sri.S.Subash Chand, appearing for the additional 7 th respondent submitted that the provisions of KER are not applicable to the special schools. He referred to the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Soni Gabriel v. State of Kerala [2025 KLT OnLine 1920]. He pointed out that the learned Single Judge followed the judgment of this Court in Sherin M. Chandy v. State of Kerala [1993 KHC 253] and held unequivocally that the provisions of chapter XIV(A) of KER are not applicable in the case of teachers appointed in the special schools for handicapped in the State. The learned counsel also made reference to some other judgments dealing with categorization of teachers. The learned counsel however, submitted that his client is not interested in the dispute between the petitioner and the 6 th respondent as the same would not affect her career prospects in the present situation.
9. In view of the categorical pronouncement of this Court regarding non-applicability of the provisions of KER to special schools in Soni Gabriel (supra), the contention of the W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015 12 learned counsel for the petitioner regarding fixation of seniority categorizing teachers in to two different categories based on the scale of pay cannot be accepted. The observation in Ext.P9 Government Order that separate seniority list shall be maintained for Assistant Teachers on higher time scale and lower time scale does not appear to be made with reference to any Government Orders governing the appointment of teachers and other service conditions pertaining to special schools.
Ext.P9 was an order issued in a revision petition filed by an individual teacher. In Ext.P6, Government has clearly stated that there are no stipulations making it necessary to maintain different seniority list for different categories of Assistant Teachers of Special Schools. Further, the government stated that only a single seniority list is being maintained in the special schools. Ext.P5 Government Order dated 22.11.1979 does not provide for maintaining separate seniority list. Therefore, the demand of the petitioner for maintaining different seniority list for Assistant Teachers depending upon their pay scales is not legally well-founded. No material having W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015 13 the force of law supports the said claim. Therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondents to maintain separate seniority lists.
10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the 6 th respondent that his client retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation during the pendency of this writ petition. Therefore, the dispute has virtually become academic in nature. However, the contention that the petitioner was appointed against a regular vacancy in 2008, while the 6th respondent, who was senior, was then working in a leave vacancy, was also pointed out as an illegality. Though there is substance in the said contention, fact remains that the said appointment was not challenged by the 6th respondent. Therefore, at this distant point of time, no observation needs to be made regarding the said appointment especially in a writ petition filed by the beneficiary of the said appointment.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 6 th respondent pointed out that their clients are entitled to get salary up to 14.07.2016 taking into account the availability of W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015 14 vacancies in terms of staff fixation order of 2010 - 2011. The petitioner continued in the school from 15.07.2010 to 14.07.2017 against a vacancy available as per the staff fixation order for the academic year 2010-11.Nonetheless, she was paid salary up to 31.08.2014 only. Similarly, the 6 th respondent continued from 15.06.2011 to 14.07.2017 against vacancies available in terms of the staff fixation order pertaining to 2010-
11. She was paid salary only up to 14.07.2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out Ext.P10 Government Order dated 04.02.2025 issued in the case of a similarly situated teacher and submitted that the petitioner was also entitled for salary up to 14.07.2016. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent also made similar claim. The said issue of non-payment of salary is not strictly within the scope of this writ petition. However, as the pendency of this writ petition raising a dispute with respect to inter se seniority might have affected the petitioner as well as the 6 th respondent by causing delay in processing their claims for salary, the competent authority among the respondents shall consider the issue of W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015 15 non-payment of salary to the petitioner as well as the 6 th respondent and take appropriate decision in the matter expeditiously.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
S.MANU JUDGE rp W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015 16 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26863/2015 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER AND APPROVAL THEREOF DATED 01.07.2008. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.2221/2012/G.EDN. DATED 15.05.2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 04.08.2014.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 21.04.2007.
EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.198/79/G.EDN. DATED 22.11.1979 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.3423/2015/G.EDN. DATED 13.08.2015 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION DATED 13.06.2011.
EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST. EXHIBIT P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.4298/10/G.EDN. DATED 6.10.2010 OG THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P-10 - TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF THE MANAGER DATED 23.02.2015.
EXHIBIT P10- TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO.991/2025/G.EDN DATED 04.02.2025.
EXHIBIT P11- TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 23.02.2015.
EXHIBIT P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT DATED 23.02.2015. W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015 17 EXHIBIT P13- TRUE COPY OF TEH GO(P) NO.154/2014/G.EDN DATED 14.08.2015 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXTHIBIT P14 - TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 24.08.2010.
EXHIBIT P15-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 28.12.2016.
EXHIBIT P16-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 25.4.2016.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R6A - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/976/14 DATED 09.07.2014 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE APPENDED SENIORITY LIST. EXHIBIT R6 B TRUE COPY OF WPC NO 16218/2018 WITH ONLY EXTS P8 AND P12 THEREIN EXHIBIT R6 C TRUE COPY WPC NO 4020/2020 WITHOUT ITS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R6 D TRUE COPY OF THE GO NO 2300/2019/G.EDN DATED 13.06.2019 EXHIBIT R6 E TRUE COPY OF GO NO 2784/2020/ G.EDN DATED 13.10.2020