Kerala High Court
Kripa Krishnan vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.17362 OF 2019(U)
PETITIONER:
KRIPA KRISHNAN, AGED 37 YEARS
WIFE OF SREE PRASAD, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ENGLISH),
KOPPARETHU HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PUTHIYAVILA,
P.O.PATTOLI MARKET, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT - 690 531.
BY ADVS.
SRI.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 INSTRUCTION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 101.
5 THE MANAGER, KOPPARETHU HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
PUTHIYAVILA P.O., PATTOLI MARKET, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
- 690 531.
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.17362 OF 2019(U)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of January 2021
The petitioner, who is stated to have been appointed as a
High School Assistant in English, in a regular promotion
vacancy in the Kopparethu Higher Secondary School,
Puthiyavila, Alappuzha - of which the fifth respondent is the
Manager - has approached this Court impugning Exts.P2, P3,
P4, P9 and P16 orders, to the extent to which her appointment
has been denied approval for the reasons that there was no
established vacancy; that approval of seniors are pending and
that the approval for the period below eight months can be
done only on daily wage basis.
2. The petitioner says that when Ext.P2 order issued by
the District Educational Officer (DEO) was taken up before the
Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha, it culminated in
Ext.P3 order, wherein, it has been concluded that the
appointment of an earlier teacher had not been yet approved
and that protected teachers from the school had been
redeployed to other schools, hence that the vacancy ought to
have been accommodated through such teachers. The
petitioner says that final objection in Ext.P2, that her period of
WP(C).No.17362 OF 2019(U)
appointment is less than eight months, has also been
reiterated in the said order.
3. The petitioner contends that the reasons stated in both
Exts.P2 and P3 are wholly untenable, since the redeployment
of the teachers mentioned therein cannot be done on account
of the mandatory core subject requirement of 1:1:1:1 as
stipulated by the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and
Rules (KER); and further that since the school has more that
50 periods for English, only the petitioner could have been
appointed, going by the minimum required staff strength for
teaching the said subject.
4. The petitioner submits that these aspects have never
been considered by any of the competent Authorities in the
impugned orders and that she has, therefore, preferred
Ext.P18, which is styled as a review petition, however,
conceding that statutorily there is no provision for maintaining
such a petition. The petitioner, nevertheless, prays that
Ext.P18 be directed to be taken up and disposed of, since the
aforementioned relevant and vital factual circumstances have
been omitted to be noted in the impugned orders.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner -
WP(C).No.17362 OF 2019(U)
Sri.M.Sajjad, as afore, the learned Senior Government
Pleader - Sri.P.M.Manoj submitted that a counter affidavit has
been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent in which the
reasons which have led to the rejection of the approval of the
petitioner have been stated. He submitted that the
Government has issued a Circular dated 06.02.2010, which
orders that HSA (core subjects) on protection shall be
deployed in Government/Aided schools in the vacancies of
HSA (English) in terms of paragraph 3(a) of the
GO(MS)No.11/02/G.Edn. Dated 07.01.2002, provided there are
no protected teachers (English). He added to his submissions
by saying that the Government subsequently have informed
the Educational Officers, through the Circular dated
31.03.2011, that as per Rule 1 Chapter XIVA of the KER,
appointment in High Schools should be made in accordance
with the subject ratio and the prescribed qualifications and
that this is intended for protecting the academic interests of
the student community. He concluded his submissions by
asserting that no HSA (core subject) can be accommodated
against other subjects except in the case of HSA (English) and
therefore, that the impugned orders have taken note of all the
WP(C).No.17362 OF 2019(U)
relevant facts while rejecting the approval of the petitioner.
6. However, to a pointed question from this Court, the
learned Senior Government Pleader conceded that there are
50 periods for English in the school, which requires at least
two HSAs in English and that the petitioner is the second of
such teachers. But he explained that protected teachers have
to be reinstated in the school against HSA (English) and that,
as on 01.06.2018, there are no protected HSA (core subject)
required in other schools; consequently, therefore, that the
appointment of the petitioner as HSA (English) from
27.08.2014 cannot be approved, since protected HSA (core
subjects) was working in other schools, who are entitled to be
reinstated in the school in question.
7. When I consider the afore submissions made by the
learned Government Pleader, it is undoubted that the
impugned orders have all proceeded based on the various
Government Orders and Circulars with respect to the
deployment of protected teachers and their reinstatement in
the parent school. However, the question whether this can be
done, going by the imperative subject ratio of 1:1:1:1 as
mandated by the KER, has not been ever considered by any of
WP(C).No.17362 OF 2019(U)
the Educational Authorities. That apart, the Educational
Authorities have also not considered the impact of G.O(Rt.)
No.3459/2020/G.Edn. Dtd 28.12.2020, which is the latest
Government Order and which certainly has a bearing on the
various issues impelled in this writ petition.
8. Perhaps discerning my mind as afore, the learned
Senior Government Pleader submitted that if this Court is so
inclined, the representation of the petitioner, namely Ext.P18,
can be considered, however, not as a review application but as
his further submissions and that a fresh order in terms of law
can be issued by the Government. He, however, prayed that
this Court may not make any affirmative declarations with
respect to the entitlement of the petitioner to any relief; and
leave it to the competent Secretary to take a decision thereon
as per law.
9. I have no doubt that the suggestion now made by the
learned Government Pleader is the best way forward for the
petitioner also and therefore, deem it appropriate to accede to
the same.
In the afore circumstances, I set aside Ext.P16, not
because I have found against it affirmatively; but so as to pave
WP(C).No.17362 OF 2019(U)
way for a fresh consideration of the revision petition filed by
the petitioner, which is referred to as item No.1 in Ext.P16
order, after affording an opportunity of being heard to her as
well as to the Manager of the school - either physically or
through video conferencing - leading to an appropriate
decision thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later
than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
I make it clear that Ext.P18 representation of the
petitioner will be treated as the written submission made by
her and that its contents will be strictly kept in mind by the
competent Secretary, while the afore exercise is completed
and the resultant order issued.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Stu JUDGE
WP(C).No.17362 OF 2019(U)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 27/08/2014.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.
B4/404/2017 OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL
OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.B3/3879/2017/L.DIS. DATED 19/05/2017 OF
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.RA(1)/555/2017/DPI/K.DIS. DATED
05/06/2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER
2014-2015 DATED 28/04/2016.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER
2015-2016 DATED 28/04/2016.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.132/09/G.EDN.
DATED 17/06/2009 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER
2010-2011 DATED 13/08/2010.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)
NO.11/2002/G.EDN. DATED 07/01/2002 OF THE
GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.74487/J2/09/G.EDN. DATED 06/02/2010 OF
THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.15895/A3/2010/G.EDN. DATED 31/03/2011
OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.44977/J2/2013/G.EDN. DATED 14/10/2015
OF THE GOVERNMENT.
WP(C).No.17362 OF 2019(U)
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN
2008(2) KLT 771(SC) DATED 8/5/2008.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.817/2017/G.EDN. DATED 24/03/2017 OF THE
GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED
20/07/2017.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.1767/2019/GEDN. DATED 17/05/2019 OF THE
GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.1163/2019/GEDN DATED 25/03/2019 OF THE
GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 15/06/2019.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.2967/2017/G.EDN. DATED 23/08/2017 OF
THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.3961/2017/G.EDN. DATED 27/10/2017 OF
THE GOVERNMENT.
