The Manager vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 4256 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942

                      WP(C).No.21622 OF 2012(C)


PETITIONER:

               THE MANAGER, NOEL MEMORIAL CORPORATE SCHOOLS
               KUMBANAD, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 547.

               BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

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.


               BY ADV.
               SRI P M MANOJ SR GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
05.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.21622 OF 2012                     2

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be the

Manager of 'Noel Memorial Corporate Schools',

Kumbanad, Pathanamthitta, and says that he is

managing 18 Schools spread over three

districts. He concedes that among the 12

Schools in Pathnamthitta District, some of

them are treated as 'uneconomic' and that

this position was altered by Government

Orders dated 01/10/2011 and 25/10/2011;

consequent to which the teachers working in

such Schools, as on 01/06/2011, but not

approved, ought to have been granted salary

at least from the date of introduction and

implementation of the 'Teachers Package'.

2. The petitioner says that while so,

the 2nd respondent - Director of Public

Instructions (now re-designated as the

Director of General Education) issued

proceedings for inclusion of teachers in the

package, but that four among the teachers in

the School managed by him were excluded,

though their services were approved. The

petitioner says that, therefore, he filed a

statutory Appeal before the Government,

through Ext.P6, pointing out that said

teachers are continuing in the existing

vacancies and have approved service.

3. The petitioner says that since the

Appeal was not considered in time, he

approached this Court by filing W.P(C)No.7777

of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court

directing the Government to consider the

same, but that Government issued Ext.P8

directing the petitioner to rearrange the

teachers according to their seniority in

various Schools, disregarding his request

that said teachers be included in the

'teachers package' and for payment of their

salary from 01/06/2011.

4. The petitioner, therefore, impugns

Ext.P8; but his learned counsel

Shri.V.A.Muhammed, conceded that subsequent

to it, the petitioner has produced Ext.P10

proceedings before the competent Authority on

31/05/2010, showing that he had complied with

the direction to rearrange the teachers and

thus prayed that Government be directed to

reconsider the matter, taking note of Ext.P10

also.

5. In response, the learned Senior

Government Pleader - Shri.P.M.Manoj,

submitted that if the petitioner has already

complied with the directions through Ext.P10

proceedings, there does not appear to be any

legal impediment in the matter being

reconsidered, particularly as to whether the

teachers in question will be eligible to be

included in the 'Teachers Package' and paid

salary with effect from 01/06/2011. He,

however, prayed that this Court may not make

any affirmative declarations in favour of the

petitioner or the teachers and allow the

competent Authority to take a decision on

this as is mandated in law.

             6.   I         have     considered           the       afore

       submissions          and     have     also       examined      the

various materials available on record.

7. Even though the petitioner has

approached this Court impugning Ext.P8, the

reason which has impelled him to do so is

because the order remains silent regarding

inclusion of the teachers in the 'Teachers

Package' and as regards payment of their

salary. The said order only directs the

petitioner to rearrange the teachers among

the various Schools according to their

seniority and it is now on record that the

petitioner has done so through Ext.P10.

8. Obviously, therefore, Government is

now obligated to consider the case of the

petitioner for including the eligible

teachers of the Schools in the 'Teachers

Package' and for payment of their salary

accordingly.

In the afore circumstances, I order this

writ petition and set aside Ext.P8; with a

resultant direction to the Government to

reconsider the claim of the petitioner,

particularly with respect to his request for

inclusion of the eligible teachers in the

'Teachers Package' and payment of salary to

them with effect from 01/06/2011, adverting

to Ext.P10 proceedings, as per which he had

complied with the directions to rearrange the

teachers and after affording him, as also the

affected teachers an opportunity of being

heard - either physically or through video

conferencing - thus culminating in an

appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously

as is possible, but not later than four

months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

MC/9.2.2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF SRI.G.STANLY DATED 05.06.2009 AND APPROVAL THEREOF DATED 06.09.2011

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF SMT.JEEN ABRAHAM DATED 06.06.2006 AND APPROVAL THEREOF DATED 18.10.2007

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OT SMT.

SUSAN SAMUEL DATED 04.06.2007 AND APPROVAL THEREOF DATED 04.02.2008

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF SMT.ANI.V.JACOB DATED 01.06.2009 AND APPROVAL THEREOF DATED 19.10.2009

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H2/35920/11/DPI DATED 12.12.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT BY THE MANAGER DATED 23.12.2011

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.7777 OF 2012 -V DATED 29.03.2012

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO.4016/2012/G.EDN. DATED 18.08.2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO.920/10/G.EDN.

DATED 02.03.2010 OF GOVERNMENT

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MANAGER (ORDER NO.244/2009-10 DATED 31.05.2010)