Kerala High Court
V.N.Lalitha vs The State Of Kerala on 18 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 28TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.1854 OF 2015(F)
PETITIONER:
V.N.LALITHA, AGED 52 YEARS
D/O. K.S.NARAYANAN, NEEDLE WORK TEACHER,
V.M.L.P.SCHOOL, ARATHIL, NAREEKAMAVALLY, P.O.MANDUR,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670501.
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-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
KANNUR DISTRICT-670001.
4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
MADAI, KANNUR DISTRICT-670304.
5 THE MANAGER
V.M.L.P.SCHOOL, ARATHIL, NAREEKAMAVALLI, MANDUR,
KANNUR-670501.
6 THE MANAGER, KADANNAPPALLY U.P SCHOOL, MADAI,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670304.
7 THE MANAGER, KADANNAPPALLY EAST L.P SCHOOL,
P.O.KADANNAPPALLY, (VIA) PILATHARA, KANNUR DISTRICT-
670304.
SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR P.
SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.1854 OF 2015(F)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of January 2021
The petitioner says that she was appointed as a Needle
Work Teacher with effect from 13.02.1989, against a regular
retirement vacancy that arose in VMLP School, Arathil,
Kannur. She has produced on record Ext.P1 to substantiate
her appointment but says that the same has been rejected by
the Assistant Educational Officer on the ground that the
Manager of the School, namely the fifth respondent, could not
have filled up vacancies of Specialist Teachers in L.P. Schools,
since the post ceased to exist on the retirement of the
incumbent Teacher working in the said post.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.Sajjad,
submits that the afore said stand of the AEO is wholly
contrary to the declarations of law made by this Court in
Govinda Pillai v. State of Kerala [1999 (2) KLT 652] and
Joji v. Joint Director of Public Instruction [2001 (2) KLT
393 (DB)] and prays that Ext.P6 be set aside and the
petitioner be, at least, directed to be included in the list of
WP(C).No.1854 OF 2015(F)
Teachers entitled to protection, because she has been
working in the School all along from the date of her initial
appointment.
3. Sri.Sajjad further explained that even though his
client had been working in the School from 13.02.1989
uninterruptedly, she was not allowed to sign the attendance
register, but was asked to sign a separate book with effect
from 31.03.2009; and that it is only, therefore, that the
Government appears to have excluded her from the list of
Teachers entitled for protection on the ground that she was
not in service as on 01.06.2011. Sri.Sajjad says that this is
egregiously improper because forty six Physical Education
Teachers have already been granted approval in various
Schools, by creation of such number of supernumerary posts,
as is evident from Ext.P3, as also 127 Specialist Teachers as
per Ext.P4; and therefore, prays that the respondents be
directed to grant the petitioner approval from the date of her
initial appointment.
4. In response to the submissions of the petitioner as
made by Sri.Sajjad as afore, the learned Senior Government
Pleader, Sri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that two counter affidavits
WP(C).No.1854 OF 2015(F)
have been placed on record, both sworn to by the Assistant
Educational Officer, dated 08.03.2019 and 20.12.2019.
Sri.P.M.Manoj submitted that, as has been averred in the
additional affidavit filed by the AEO dated 20.12.2019, on
account of the amendments to Rule 2(3) and 6-B of Chapter
XXIII of the KER, the petitioner could not have been
appointed to the post of Needle Teacher on the retirement of
the earlier teacher, since the said post ceased to be in
existence after such retirement. He, however, admitted that,
as is averred in the first affidavit of the AEO dated
08.03.2019, the petitioner had attended the School after
31.03.2009, though had not signed the attendance register
but a separate book and it is only, therefore, that when the
case of 127 Specialist Teachers were considered for being
granted the status of protected Teacher, she was excluded,
since the attendance register did not show that she was in
service on 01.06.2011, which is the relevant date. The
learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that this can
only be interpreted to mean that the petitioner has ceased her
service from 01.06.2009, though she had attended the School
and had signed a separate book.
WP(C).No.1854 OF 2015(F)
5. Sri.P.M.Manoj concluded his submissions by saying
that since the School in question is an uneconomic School,
there was no provision to create additional Teachers posts
and that since the petitioner was appointed in a retirement
vacancy, but not approved by the Educational Authority, she
cannot seek any prayer, including that she be treated as a
protected teacher. He, therefore, prayed that this writ
petition be dismissed.
6. Sri.V.N.Ramesan Nambisan, the learned counsel for
respondents 5 to 7, submitted that the petitioner is fully
entitled to the reliefs sought for by her in this writ petition
because, as has been explained by this Court in Govinda
Pillai (supra) and Joji (supra), the amendments to Rule 2(3)
and to Rule 6B, of Chapter XXIII of the KER apply only to
U.P.Schools and not to an L.P.School. He further submitted
that since it has been admitted by the Government that the
petitioner was working in the School even as on 01.06.2011 -
though she was signing in a separate note book and not the
attendance register on account of the rigor of the various
Government Orders - she is eligible to be at least treated as a
protected Teacher, as has been done in the case of 127
WP(C).No.1854 OF 2015(F)
Specialist Teachers through Ext.P4 order. He , therefore,
prayed that this writ petition be allowed.
7. I have considered the afore submissions and have
examined the materials and documents available on record
very carefully.
8. It is indubitable that the petitioner claims that she
was working in the School ever since from the date of her
initial appointment and that she continues to do so even as on
date. Her specific case is that even though she was so
working, she was not allowed to sign the attendance register
maintained by the Manager with effect from 31.03.2009 and
that she was signing in a separate note book placed for this
purpose. In fact, the averments in the affidavit filed by the
AEO dated 08.03.2019 affirms this, since it is expressly
admitted therein that the petitioner continued to attend the
School after 31.03.2009 but that she was not allowed to sign
the attendance register thereafter, even as on 01.06.2011,
being the cut off date for consideration of grant of protection
to the Specialist Teachers. These facts are also unequivocally
admitted by the Headmistress in Ext.P8.
9. Obviously therefore, merely because the petitioner
WP(C).No.1854 OF 2015(F)
had not signed the attendance register, it would not be a
proper reason to decline her the claim for protection, as has
been granted in the case of 127 other Specialist Teachers,
which is evident from Ext.P4.
10. That apart, the question whether the amendments to
Rule 2(3) and to Rule 6B of Chapter XXIII of the KER would
apply to the case of the petitioner have been answered by this
Court in Govinda Pillai (supra) and Joji (supra). These
judgments have not been even adverted to by the competent
Authority, while considering the case of the petitioner; and I
am of the view that Ext.P6 cannot hence find favour in law,
particularly because the petitioner asserts that she was
entitled to be included in Ext.P4 list from the date of her
appointment from 01.06.2011, at least notionally.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and
set aside Ext.P6; with a consequential direction to the
competent Secretary of the first respondent - State of Kerala
to reconsider her claim, adverting to various documents on
record, particularly Exts.P7 and P8, as also the counter
affidavit of the AEO dated 08.03.2019, after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as to the
WP(C).No.1854 OF 2015(F)
fifth respondent Manager - either physically or through video
conferencing - thus culminating in 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.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Stu JUDGE
WP(C).No.1854 OF 2015(F)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 13-2-1989.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT
DATED
1-6-2002.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.307/2004/G.EDN.
DATED 4-10-2004 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO. 116/2012/G.EDN.
DATED 12-4-2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO. 199/2011/G.EDN.
DATED 1-10-2011 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.
3607/2014/G.EDN. DATED 16-09-2014 OF THE
GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C/5190/11 DATED
3-7-2012 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14-01-2013
SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES OF ARGUMENT DATED 18-
04-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEARING
HELD BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
