Kerala High Court
Corporate Educational Agency ... vs State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 1 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.24400 OF 2020(Y)
PETITIONERS :-
1 CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY MARY MATHA PROVINCE
ANGAMALY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
SMT.PRASANNA, AGED 59 YEARS, D/O.OUSEPH,
KALLARACKAL HOUSE, MOOKKANNOOR.
2 P.A SHINU, AGED 33 YEARS
D/O.P.A. ANTONY, PULICKAL HOUSE,
MAMBRA LPST OLPH UPS EDAKKUNNU, ANGAMALY.
BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
RESPONDENTS :-
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 011.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
ALUVA, PIN - 683 101.
5 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
ANGAMALY, PIN - 683 572.
6 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 513.
BY SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.24400 OF 2020(Y)
-: 2 :-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2021
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"i) To call for the records relating to Exhibits P1 to P5 and to
issue writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 2, 3
and 4 to approve and regularize the service of the 2nd
petitioner as UPST in OLPHUPS Edakunnu accepting her
claim under rule 51 A under chapter 14 A KER for the year
2014-2015 based upon the law declared by the Full Bench of
this Hon'ble High Court reported in 2014 (4) KLT 612 and to
order issuance of salary and other benefits.
i(a) To issue any writ order or direction directing the respondents
to approve the appointment of the 2nd petitioner as LPST in
OLPH UPS Edakunnu for the period from 2015-16, 2016-17
and 2017-18 and thereafter in SJLPS Karukutty and to
disburse salary and all benefits due to her.
ii) To issue any writ order or direction commanding the
respondents 2 and 6 to regularize the appointments made by
1st petitioner in its schools by clearing all the appointments
made by the 1st petitioner in the 38 post including that of the
2nd petitioner in the post of LPST, UPST and HST etc., in the
school of the 1st petitioner based upon the staff fixation orders
passed from time to time sanctioning posts.
iii) To issue any writ order or direction directing the 2nd
respondent to consider Ext.P4 in the light of the Full Bench
Decision of this Hon'ble High Court reported in 2014 (4) KLT
612."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Government Pleader.
WP(C).No.24400 OF 2020(Y)
3. The 1st petitioner is a Corporate Educational Agency while
the 2nd petitioner is an appointee to the post of LPST by Ext.P1
appointment order. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as LPST with
effect from 3.6.2013. The appointment was approved from 3.6.2013
to 31.3.2014 on the basis of an appellate order of the DPI by the
endorsement of the Assistant Educational Officer dated 5.10.2018.
The Manager took up the issue before the Government seeking
approval of the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner from 3.6.2013 by
permitting the shifting as UPST in an available vacancy for the year
2014-2015. By Ext.P2 order dated 8.7.2020, it was found that since
the 2nd petitioner's approved appointment was as LPST from 3.6.2013
till 31.3.2014 and since there was a division fall in the LP Section in
2014-2015, the shifting done by the Manager was not in order. It was
further held that there should be a revised appointment of the 2 nd
petitioner as UPST if the issue of approval with effect from 2014-2015
is liable to be considered.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2 nd
petitioner being a Rule 51A claimant, the 1 st petitioner was
completely justified in having permitted her continuance as UPST
since she was fully qualified. It is further submitted that Ext.P6
proceedings had been issued by the Director General of Education,
which is also sought to be challenged in this writ petition. It is
WP(C).No.24400 OF 2020(Y)
submitted that the 2nd petitioner was entitled to continue as UPST
from the academic year 2014-2015 itself and that the said
continuance is liable to be approved by the respondents.
5. The learned Government Pleader has filed a memo as
directed by this Court on 8.1.2021 and has produced the orders
passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam in the nine
appeals preferred by the petitioners. It is contended that this
Court in Thresia M. L. v. Preethy M. P. and others [2014 (4) KHC
822] has clearly held that the posts of LPST and UPST are not
interchangeable posts and are separate categories of posts. It is
stated that in case the 1st petitioner has a case that the 2 nd petitioner
is fully qualified and eligible to continue as UPST, there ought to have
been a fresh appointment order issued to the 2 nd petitioner in the post
of UPST in the academic year 2014-2015 itself and if such an
appointment is made and a proposal is sent up, the same is liable to
be considered. It is submitted that the 1 st petitioner has not passed
any orders of re-appointment of the 2 nd petitioner and no proposal for
approval has been sent up by the 1st petitioner. It is, therefore,
contended that the refusal to approve the appointment of the 2 nd
petitioner after 31.3.2014 is completely in order.
6. Having considered the contentions advanced, I find that
the initial appointment of the 2nd petitioner was as LPST in a
WP(C).No.24400 OF 2020(Y)
sanctioned post. A reading of Ext.P2 would show that there was a
division fall in the LP Section in the academic year 2014-2015. The
2nd petitioner's appointment was, therefore, approved only from
3.6.2013 to 31.3.2014, that is, for the duration of one academic year.
Ext.P2 would further show that there were two vacancies of UPST
available in the OLPH UPS, Edakkunnu. In case the 1 st petitioner had
not filled up the two vacancies of UPST available in the academic year
2014-2015 by making other appointments, the 2 nd petitioner can be
appointed as UPST in one of the available vacancies and the
appointment can be sent up for approval. In case such an
appointment order is issued by the 1 st petitioner and a proposal is
sent up for consideration, the AEO will consider the approval of the
appointment of the 2nd petitioner as UPST in one of the vacancies.
In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is
disposed of with the following directions :-
(a) In case the 1st petitioner issues an order of
appointment of the 2nd petitioner as UPST for the
academic year 2014-2015 in one of the available
vacancies of UPST and forwards a proposal for
consideration to the AEO, the same shall be
considered without reference to the time limit for
forwarding the proposal and the proposal for approval
shall be considered by the 5 th respondent in
accordance with law, without delay, at any rate, within
WP(C).No.24400 OF 2020(Y)
a period of one month from the date of receipt of the
proposal.
(b) In case there are any other appointments made to the
post of UPST in the relevant year, such claims shall
also be considered in accordance with law.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
Jvt/4.2.2021
WP(C).No.24400 OF 2020(Y)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF 2ND
PETITIONER DATED 3.6.2013.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.O(RT)
NO.2290/2020/GEDN OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
08.07.2020.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 31797/19
DATED 25.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2177/2020 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 26.06.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST MAINTAINED BY 1ST PETITIONER
SHOWING THE DETAILS OF LPST UPST AND HSA AND MENIAL
STAFF WHOSE APPOINTMENTS ARE NOT APPROVED DATED
3.6.2013 TO 11.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.F5/7848/2020/DPI
DATED 1/1/2021
