Kerala High Court
Sunil Kumar C.K vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942
WA.No.1783 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26801/2019(A) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 17/2/2020
APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER:
SUNIL KUMAR C.K
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. KUTTAN C.V, CHATHAKOODATH, CHITTISSERRY
P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680301.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (KANNAMPUZHA)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 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
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680001.
WA No.1783/2020
-:2:-
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680001.
5 THE MANAGER
SREE DURGA VILASAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680553.
6 THE HEAD MASTER
SREE DURGA VILASAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680553.
7 K.V. VIJINDAS,
S/O.K.K. VIDHYADHARAN, HIGH SCHOOL
ASSISTANT(MALAYALAM), SREE DURGA VILASAM HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR
DISTRICT), RESIDING AT KARUMAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
P.O, PUZHAKKAL, THRISSUR - 680553.
8 PRINTUMON K
S/O. SAHADEVAN, KOLLARIKKAL HOUSE, P P KARA
POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676562.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. A. J. VARGHESE-SR. G.P.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA No.1783/2020
-:3:-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2021
Shaffique, J.
Petitioner in WP(C) No. 26801/2019 has preferred this
appeal challenging judgment of the learned Single Judge by
which the writ petition had been dismissed.
2. Petitioner/appellant challenged Exts.P6 and P7 orders
and sought for a direction to respondents 1 to 6 to approve the
service of the petitioner as HSA(Malayalam) in the school
managed by the 5th respondent from 15/7/2014 to 3/3/2017 in
continuation of his earlier service.
3. Petitioner was appointed as HSA(Malayalam) on
6/6/2012 in a promotion vacancy. His appointment was approved
from 6/6/2012 to 14/7/2014. However, due to division fall, his
service was not approved from 15/7/2014 onwards. According to
him, though he was working in the school, he was not paid salary
and he was redeployed to another post on 3/3/2017.
4. The 7th respondent was appointed as HSA (Malayalam)
WA No.1783/2020
in the very same school on 5/7/2005. He submitted a letter of
resignation dated 18/6/2013 and he had withdrawn the said letter
on 1/10/2013. In the meantime, Manager appointed the 8 th
respondent in the vacancy of resignation of the 7 th respondent on
17/8/2013. Though the resignation of the 7 th respondent was
submitted for approval, the same was not approved and the 7 th
respondent was directed to rejoin duty. The period of service
during which the 7th respondent was remaining outside was
directed to be treated as non-duty. The Manager preferred an
appeal, which resulted in Ext.P7 order confirming the directions in
Ext.P6 order passed by the District Educational Officer. In Exts.P6
and P7, direction had been issued to disburse salary and other
benefits to the 8th respondent for the period from the date of his
appointment till the date of resumption of duty by the 7 th
respondent.
5. Contention urged by the petitioner was that since he
was senior to the 8th respondent, he should have been paid the
salary and other benefits for the period from 15/7/2014 to
3/3/2017. The learned Single Judge after considering the
respective contentions of the parties observed that as the
WA No.1783/2020
petitioner had accepted Ext.P1 order granting approval from
6/6/2012 to 14/7/2014, which is not under challenge, he cannot
complain against any decision taken on the request of the 7 th
respondent to revoke the letter of resignation.
6. Apparently this is a case in which petitioner's
appointment was approved only from 6/6/2012 to 14/7/2014.
Thereafter, there was a division fall and consequently, petitioner
is not entitled for continuing in service. Though he has alleged
that he was working during the relevant time, in the absence of a
definite post to accommodate the petitioner, he cannot claim
salary during the subsequent period until he was redeployed.
7. As far as the 7th respondent is concerned, he
submitted a letter of resignation on 18/6/2013 when the
petitioner was having valid service. Thereafter, he sought for
withdrawing the letter of resignation, which was not permitted by
the Manager and the 8th respondent was appointed in that post
on 17/8/2013. Therefore, as on 17/8/2013, petitioner was in
regular service. It is later, due to division fall, the petitioner had
to be retrenched from service. The contention of the petitioner is
that, instead of appointing the 8th respondent, Manager should
WA No.1783/2020
have appointed the petitioner, but, as already stated, at the
relevant time, petitioner was in regular service and was
retrenched only subsequently. Of course, there is some
justification on the part of the petitioner in contending that when
the 8th respondent was appointed and, later on, on account of
division fall, petitioner was retrenched, in his place, the 8 th
respondent should have been retrenched. But it is relevant to
note that during the relevant time, the issue regarding
acceptance of resignation and withdrawal of resignation were
under consideration before this Court and the educational
authorities, which ultimately became final only by the issuance of
Exts.P6 and P7 orders. The rights of the petitioner could not have
been adjudicated in the proceedings at Exts.P6 and P7. Under
such circumstances, the learned Single Judge was justified in not
interfering with Exts.P6 and P7.
As far as the claim for salary during the relevant period is
concerned, petitioner claims that he was working during the
relevant period, but without approval. The 8th respondent also
was working in the place of 7 th respondent and there is nothing
wrong in the educational authorities deciding that the 8 th
WA No.1783/2020
respondent should be paid the salary during the interregnum
period. We, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the
judgment of the learned Single Judge. Writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
Rp True Copy JUDGE
PS to Judge
