Sabu Thomas vs The General Education Department
2021 Latest Caselaw 2773 Ker

               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.20874 OF 2013(H)


PETITIONER:

               SABU THOMAS, THEKKANATH HOUSE,
               MALAYATTOOR PO, VIMALAGIRTI 683 587,
               ERNAKULAM

               BY ADVS.SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC
               DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY
               PIN - 695 001.

      2        MARTHOMA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
               CHUNGATHARA PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 334,
               REPRESENTED BY MANAGER.

               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 20874/13                       2




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of January 2021

The petitioner says that he was appointed as a Drawing

Teacher in the second respondent School with effect from 19.06.2006

in a sanctioned post available for the academic year, but that,

however, his appointment was rejected by the District Educational

Officer, Wandoor on the ground that since the School is a newly

opened one, the Manager ought to have appointed only a protected

teacher in the vacancy to which he has been appointed.

2. The petitioner contends the afore stand of the Educational

Authority is illegal, since no list of protected teachers had been

forwarded to the Manager by the jurisdictional Assistant Educational

Officer (AEO) and further because, as is evident from Exhibit P6(ii)

information received under the Right to Information Act, no

undeployed protected Drawing Teacher was available for that

academic year.

3. The petitioner thus contends that the order of the District

Educational Officer, as also Exhibits P3 to P5 orders issued by the

Director of Public Instructions (now re-designated as the Director of

General Education) and the Government are all illegal and unlawful

and, therefore, prays that same be set aside; thus seeking a

consequential direction to the District Educational Officer to approve

his appointment as a Drawing Teacher with effect from 19.06.2006.

4. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted

that a counter affidavit has been filed, wherein, it is stated in

paragraph 4 thereof as under:

"It is submitted that, the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram had prepared and published the list of protected teachers in the year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and the list of protected teachers was made available to all Managers through the District/Assistant Educational Officers concerned. The Manager ought to have appointed a protected teacher in the school. The appointment of the petitioner was against the then existing Government orders and hence was not approved. He resigned from service on 01.06.2009."

5. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner cannot seek

any further relief in this writ petition and prayed that same be

dismissed.

6. When I hear the learned Government Pleader as afore, it is

indubitable that, after the declaration of law by this Court in State of

Kerala v. Nadeera (2013 (2) KLT 88), the petitioner's approval can

be held up only if alist of protected teachers had been made available

to the Manager by the concerned Educational Authority.

7. Even though the Government has taken a stand that such a

list was given to the Manager in this case, this is belied by the

information contained in Exhibit P6(ii), wherein, it is stated that there

was no undeployed protected Drawing Teachers for that academic

year in the said District. That apart, in none of the impugned orders,

namely Exhibits P3 to P5, has any of the authorities found that such a

list had been forwarded to the Manager and he had, in spite of the

same, appointed the petitioner as a Drawing Teacher.

8. I can only, therefore, inferentially hold that no such list was

forwarded to the Manager and further that there was no undeployed

protected Drawing Teacher during that academic year. Obviously,

therefore, the ratio in Nadeera (supra) would apply to the facts of

this case fully.

9. In the afore circumstances, I set aside Exhibits P3 to P5;

with a consequential direction to the Assistant Educational Officer to

re-consider the proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment

in terms of Nadeera (supra) and adverting to the afore observations

as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

10. In order to obtain an expeditious compliance of the

directions in this judgment, I permit the petitioner to produce a

certified copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition,

before the jurisdictional AEO.

This writ petition is thus disposed of.

Sd/-

Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 19/06/2006

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, WANDOOR

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/1860/2007 K DIS. DATED 23/04/2007

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EM(4) 36424/07/ DP1/K.DIS

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.68289/K2/2008/ G.EDN. DATED 25/11/2008

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION AND REPLY NO.

A5/1701/12 DATED 26/03/2012 OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, WANODOOR

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE