Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs State Of Kerala on 25 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/6TH PHALGUNA, 1942
W.A.No.128 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.11.2015 IN W.P(C).NO.22485/2013 DATED
23-11-2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN THE W.P.(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEX,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14.
3 THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
KANNUR P.O., KANNUR -2.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
THALSSERY P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR-670 101.
5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
TELLICHERRY NORTH P.O., TELLICHERRY, KANNUR-670 101.
BY SMT.RAJI T. BHASKAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 6TH RESPONDENT IN THE W.P.(C):
1 SHEREENA M.
AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.LATHEESH BABU,
FULL TIME SANSKRIT TEACHER, R.C.AMALA BASIC SCHOOL,
PINARAYI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 741.
2 THE MANAGER
R.C.AMALA BASIC SCHOOL, PINARAYI,P.O.PINARAYI,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670 741.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.M.M.DEEPA
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SR.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJPRADEEP
BY SMT.RAJI T. BHASKAR, GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25-02-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.128/2017 :: 2 ::
JUDGMENT
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The State is in appeal against the judgment dated
23.11.2015 in W.P.(C).No.22485/2013, whereby, the learned
Single Judge upheld the claim of the petitioner, who was a Part
Time Sanskrit teacher claiming full time service benefits from
19.6.2009, the date of her appointment as a teacher in the
School. It would appear that when the petitioner's appointment
was forwarded to the Assistant Educational Officer [AEO] for
approval, the AEO approved the appointment only as Part Time
teacher on the ground that the number of periods available for
approval as a Full Time teacher was 15, and in the School, there
were only 12 periods available for teaching Sanskrit. The order
of the AEO was maintained by the Appellate Authority through
Ext.P4 order and also by the Revision Authority in Ext.P8 order.
In Ext.P8 order, the Government directed the Director of Public
Instruction [DPI] to consider the claim of the petitioner for the
W.A.No.128/2017 :: 3 ::
benefit of a Group 'C' diversion. The DPI, acting on the
directions of the Government, passed Ext.P15 order dated
20.4.2012 rejecting the claim for Group 'C' diversion, once again
on the ground that the student strength was not sufficient to
authorize such a diversion. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had
also preferred a Review Petition before the Government against
Ext.P8 order, which the Government rejected through Ext.P10
order dated 29.6.2013. The petitioner approached the writ court
impugning Exts.P8, P10 and P15 orders aforementioned.
2. The learned Single Judge, after an elaborate
consideration of the matter, found that while the claim of the
petitioner that the post to which she was appointed was a Full
time post could not be accepted since the earlier incumbent in
the post had only obtained full time benefits in the post which
was essentially a Part Time post. The learned Judge, however,
found force in the contention of the petitioner that she was
entitled for the benefit of Group 'C' diversion by finding that
there were sufficient periods in the Group 'C' subjects available
for diversion to Sanskrit for the purposes of granting full time
benefits to the petitioner from the date of her appointment,
namely, 19.6.2009. While doing so, the learned Single Judge also
W.A.No.128/2017 :: 4 ::
considered the contentions of the learned Government Pleader
based on Government Order 220/2010 dated 4.11.2010 that,
consequent to the enactment of the Right to Education Act,
Group 'C' diversion was not to be permitted in Schools. The
learned Judge found that the Government itself had subsequently
clarified the position through a Circular dated 20.9.2011,
wherein, it was clearly stated that Group 'C' diversion granted
for full time benefits to language teachers would continue to be
available to such teachers till their retirement. In other words, it
was found that insofar as the petitioner was an existing teacher
in the School, at the time of the enactment of the Right to
Education Act, the benefit of Group 'C' diversion could not be
denied to the petitioner merely on account of the coming into
force of the Right to Education Act. The Education authorities
were therefore directed to grant to the petitioner, the benefit of
Full Time status from 19.6.2009, and her salary was directed to
be re-fixed in accordance with law and the entire arrears paid
within a period of three months from the date of the judgment.
Before us, the contention of the learned Government
Pleader is essentially with regard to the application of the
Government Order 220/2010 dated 4.11.2010. It is contended
W.A.No.128/2017 :: 5 ::
that there was no vested right accruing to the petitioner to claim
Group 'C' diversion based on earlier Government Orders
especially when the Government Order dated 4.11.2010 put an
end to the practice of Group 'C' diversion. We find, however, that
this specific contention of the Government Pleader was adverted
to by the learned Single Judge who relied on a subsequent
clarification issued by the Government to hold in favour of the
writ petitioner on her claim for Group 'C' diversion benefits. We
have not been shown any additional material that would
persuade us to take a different view from that expressed by the
learned Single Judge. Under the circumstances, the Writ Appeal
fails, and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
prp/26/2/21
