Kerala High Court
The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 19 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.10203 OF 2011(A)
PETITIONERS:
1 THE MANAGER, ERAPURAM S.V.L.P.SCHOOL
CHORODE, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
2 M.N.MANJU, ASSISTANT TEACHER,ERAPURAM S.V.L.P.SCHOOL,
CHORODE, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
3 K.JESSY, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
ERAPURAM S.V.L.P.SCHOOL CHORODE,, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION,
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM 695 014.
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 101.
4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 101.
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.10203 OF 2011(A)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of January 2021
The Manager of the Erapuram S.V.L.P.School, Chorode as
the first petitioner and two Lower Primary School Teachers as
the 2nd and 3rd petitioners, have approached this Court
impugning Exts.P14 and P15 Government Orders, contending
that they are illegal, unlawful and contrary to the specific
declarations of this Court in a catena of judgments, including
Nadeera v. State of Kerala [2011 (3) KLT 790].
2. The petitioners say that the second among them is
working as a Lower Primary School Teacher from 03.01.2007
in the school, while the third as LPST from 02.01.2008; but
that their appointments were rejected by the Assistant
Educational Officer for the reason that the school is an
"uneconomic" one and therefore, that the Manager could have
filled up the vacancies only through protected teachers. They
admit that the subsequent appeals filed against this have also
been rejected.
3. The petitioners contend that an uneconomic school is
not defined in the Kerala Education Act and Rules and that
Ext.P14 is only a Government Order, followed by Ext.P15
WP(C).No.10203 OF 2011(A)
which mandates that vacancies in such schools should be filled
up only by protected hands and that only Rule 51A, 51B and
43 claimants would be entitled to be appointed to such
vacancies apart from the protected teachers. The petitioners
assert that Exts.P14 and P15 have no legs to stand on,
subsequent to the judgment of this Court in Nadeera (supra)
as also in view of the declarations of law in Anitha John v.
Eldhose Mathew [2002 (3) KLT 974], Suguna Prakash v.
State of Kerala [2002 (3) KLT 488] and Dhananjay Malik &
Others v. State of Uttaranchal & Others (2008) 4 SCC
171, all of which declares that a statutory vested right cannot
be taken away by an executive order.
4. In response to the submissions of the petitioners as
made by their learned counsel - Sri.M.Sajjad, the learned
Senior Government Pleader - Sri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that
since the school in question is an "uneconomic" one, the
Manger could not have appointed petitioners 2 and 3 and
therefore, that orders impugned in this writ petition are
irreproachable and without error. However, to a pointed
question from this Court, he conceded that the question of the
approval of petitioners 2 and 3 has not been decided on the
touchstone of the declarations of law made by this Court in
WP(C).No.10203 OF 2011(A)
Nadeera (supra) and submitted that if this Court is so
inclined, the competent Educational Authorities can
reconsider the matter taking note of the said judgments also.
5. I have considered the afore submissions and it is
indubitable that the approval of the appointment of petitioners
2 and 3 has been held up solely on account of Exts.P14 and
P15 Government Orders. However, consequent to Nadeera
(supra), it is ineluctable that these two orders cannot be used
against the grant of approval of appointments of petitioners 2
and 3, particularly because there is nothing on record to show
that a list of protected teachers had been forwarded to the
Manager by the competent Educational Authorities. I am,
therefore, of the firm view that the matter requires to be
reconsidered by the first respondent.
6. Resultantly, I am of the opinion that the petitioners
must be allowed an opportunity of filing statutory revisions
against the impugned orders rejecting the approval of
appointments of petitioners 2 and 3, within a time frame, so
that the same can be considered by the competent Secretary
of the Government as per the suggestion of the learned Senior
Government Pleader above.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and
WP(C).No.10203 OF 2011(A)
leave liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate revisions
under Rule 92 Chapter XIVA of the KER before the
Government of Kerala against the orders rejecting their
approval; and if this is done within a period of three weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same
shall be considered by its competent Secretary, after affording
an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners - either
physically or through video conferencing - leading to an
appropriate decision thereon, adverting to the declarations in
Nadeera (supra), as expeditiously as is possible, but not later
than three months from the date of the revisions to be filed by
the petitioners in terms of these directions.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
stu JUDGE
WP(C).No.10203 OF 2011(A)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.115/07/K.DIS
OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.B6/5618/07
OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LETTER
NO.76979/L1/08/G.EDN OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED
BY THE MANAGER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.C/283/08
OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.G3/79837/08/DPI/K.DIS OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C/3138/2010 OF
THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/731/2011 OF
THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER
2006-07.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER
2007-08.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER
2008-09.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER
2009-10.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER
2010-11.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.259/2006/G.EDN.
OF GOVT.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.4545/J2/2007/G.EDN. OF GOVT.
