Kerala High Court
Asha Varghese vs State Of Kerala Rep. By Its ... on 25 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 5TH MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.33107 OF 2015(K)
PETITIONER:
ASHA VARGHESE, HSA (MALAYALAM),
SAINT JOSEPH HIGH SCHOOL, ENAMAKKAL,
THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SHRI.K.B.GANGESH
SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
VIDYABHYASA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
THRISSUR, PIN: 680 003.
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
CHAVAKKADU, PIN: 680 506.
5 THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY,
ARCHDIOCESE OF TRICHUR, THRISSUR-5.
R5 BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SR.
R5 BY ADV. SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
R1-R4 BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE (GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 33107/15 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of January 2021
The petitioner says that she was appointed as a High School
Assistant (Malayalam) in St.Joseph's High School, Thrissur by the fifth
respondent Manager with effect from 03.06.2008, in the vacancy
which arose consequent to the promotion of Smt.Suma C.Anto as a
Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST), but that her approval was,
however, rejected by the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur
solely for the reason that the aforementioned promotee's appointment
had not been approved and consequently, that the vacancy had not
been established.
2. The petitioner contends that, however, as is evident from
Exhibit P1, the promotion of Smt.Suma C.Anto as HSST has been
approved with effect from 01.12.2007 and therefore, that a vacancy to
accommodate her on 03.06.2008 is clearly established. She says that
even though all these facts are conceded in Exhibit P2 order, the
Director of Public Instructions (now re-designated as Director of
General Education) has ordered that her approval be granted only
with effect from 01.06.2011, solely because the Government Order
(G.O.(P)No.199/11/G.Edn.) relating to the Teachers Package was
issued only on 01.10.2011.
3. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Exhibits P2 and P3
orders be set aside, to the extent to which approval has been granted
to her only with effect from 01.06.2011 and consequently seeks that
the competent authorities be directed to grant approval to her with
effect from 03.06.2008, being the date of her initial appointment.
4. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that the petitioner cannot be granted approval with effect from
03.06.2008 since there was no established vacancy at that time to
appoint her. He says that the approval was, thereafter, granted with
from 01.06.2011 in terms of the 'Teachers Package' and that it has
been specified therein that prior service of the teachers included in
such Package cannot be reckoned for any service benefits, but will be
deemed to have commenced afresh with effect from 01.06.2011. The
learned Government Pleader, therefore, contends that Exhibits P2 and
P3 orders are irreproachable and prayed that this writ petition be
dismissed.
5. Even when I hear the learned Government Pleader on the
afore lines, the fact remains that the petitioner's approval cannot be
granted under the Teachers Package, if there had been a clear
vacancy to accommodate her on 03.06.2008. The initial orders
rejecting her approval was solely for the reason that the promotion of
Smt.Suma C. Anto - consequent to which the vacancy had arisen - had
not been approved. But, as rightly stated by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, this benefit had been granted to the said promotee
through Exhibit P1 order dated 04.07.2011, whereby approval was
given to her promotion with effect from 01.12.20017. Obviously,
therefore, on 03.06.2008, when the petitioner was appointed, there
was a clear vacancy to accommodate her and I cannot, therefore, find
favour with Exhibits P2 and P3 orders, which grants her the benefit
only under the 'Teachers Package'.
6. As I have already said above, since the petitioner is
seeking an appointment to a promotion vacancy, her claim has to be
considered on such basis, rather than she be brought under the ambit
of the teachers package, which would be applicable only to cases
where the earlier appointments were not to a sanctioned or
authorised vacancy. In the case at hand, this being not so, I cannot
find Exhibits P2 and P3 orders to be valid in law.
7. In the afore circumstances, I set aside Exhibits P2 and P3,
with a consequential direction to the fourth respondent District
Educational Officer, Chavakkad, to again take up the proposal for
approving the appointment of the petitioner with effect from
03.06.2008, adverting to my afore observations and also after
affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as also the
Manager of the School - either physically or through video
conferencing - thus culminating in an appropriate decision thereon,
as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
Devan Ramachandran, Judge
tkv
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL DATED
04/07/2011 GRANTED TO THE PROMOTION OF
SMT.SUMA C ANTO AS HSST (JR.MALAYALAM)
UNDER THE 5TH RESPONDENT)
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 05/10/2012 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 01/08/2015 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 03/08/2015
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
