Kerala High Court
P.C.Narayanan vs The State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 29 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 9TH MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.14127 OF 2011(M)
PETITIONER:
P.C.NARAYANAN, S/O KUNHIKRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
AGED 46 YEARS, MUSIC TEACHER,, KUTTAMBOOR HIGH
SCHOOL, P.O. PUNNASSERI,, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
(RESIDING AT KARUTHEDATH, HOUSE, NANMANDA VIA
BALUSSERY.
BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION (K) DEPARTMENT,,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM -695 014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 020.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 573.
5 THE MANAGER, KUTTAMBOOR HIGH SCHOOL,
P.O.PUNNASSERI-673 584,, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 14127/11
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court
making various allegations, averments and
assertions, but I notice that he also concedes
that he has preferred Ext.P9 Review Petition,
under the provisions of Rule 93 Chapter XIVA
of the Kerala Education Rules (KER for short),
before the Government.
2. The petitioner's specific case is that
his appointment was approved based on Ext.P1,
which was justified through Ext.P2 staff
fixation order; and that, as per the then
existing Rule 6(4) of Chapter XXIII of the
KER, he was entitled to be retained as a Music
Teacher. He says that this is so because the
Statutory Rule had been amended only with
effect from 28.10.1995 and therefore, that
Government ought to have given him the said
benefit, taking into account Ext.P1 order,
thus contending that Ext.P8 order is in error.
WPC 14127/11
He, therefore, prays that Ext.P8 be set aside
and the Government be directed to consider
Ext.P9 Review Petition and take a decision
thereon as per law.
3. In response, Sri.P.M.Manoj - learned
Senior Government Pleader, submitted that a
counter affidavit has been filed on record
wherein, it has been averred that, the
petitioner continued as a Music Teacher with
effect from 01.06.1992 only provisionally and
that, as per the staff fixation order of the
year 2002-2003, only one post was sanctioned
in the High School in the Arts group, since
there were only 17 periods of Arts. He added
that the petitioner, who was a Junior Teacher
in Arts group, was retrenched as he was not
eligible for protection and that this post was
abolished during the year 2002-2003, there
being not enough periods to sanction a second
specialist post in the Arts group. He,
WPC 14127/11
however, to a pointed question from this
Court, conceded that the petitioner was
continuing as a Music Teacher in the School on
the basis of the interim order of this Court
but asserted that his appointment has not yet
been regularised.
4. The learned Senior Government Pleader
further submitted that, as per Government
Order, bearing number GO(MS)No.525/1995/G.Edn
dated 28.10.1995, a second post in the Arts
group can be sanctioned only when the periods
under each group becomes 26 or above and that
by a subsequent Government Order dated
06.08.2004, the provisions of Rule 6(4)
Chapter XXIII of the KER have been amended
with effect from 28.10.1995 giving statutory
validity to the former mentioned Government
Order. He, therefore, submitted that these
orders and amendments are applicable to the
petitioner and prayed that this Writ Petition
WPC 14127/11
be dismissed.
5. When I consider the rival contentions
as afore, it is evident that the petitioner
was appointed as a Music Teacher with effect
from 09.10.1991 and that it was approved for
the period till 31.03.1992. It is conceded
that the staff fixation order of the year
2002-2003 abolished the post of Music Teacher
but the petitioner says that this is
arbitrary, since the subsequent amendment
could not have been applied to his case,
because he was in service from 09.10.1991. He
also contends that he is eligible for
protection and therefore, that he could not
have been retrenched from service, as has been
done by the Government.
6. I find some force in the submissions
of the petitioner as made by his learned
counsel - Sri.M.Sajjad, since in Ext.P8
Government Order his contentions have not been
WPC 14127/11
specifically adverted to, except saying that,
as per the staff fixation order of the year
2002-2003, there was only one post of
Specialist Teacher in 'Drawing' sanctioned and
that the post of Music Teacher was abolished
due to reduction of periods. It is also stated
therein that the petitioner - being approved
on provisional basis by virtue of an interim
order of this Court - was not eligible for
protection, since his appointment had not been
approved as a Regular Teacher as per the
provisions of the KER. The Government has thus
concluded in Ext.P8 that, going by the second
and third provisos to Rule 6(4) Chapter XXIII
of the KER, minimum periods are required for
sanctioning Specialist Teacher's post.
7. I am afraid that I cannot find favour
with Ext.P8 without further scrutiny, since
the specific contention of the petitioner is
that he was appointed as early as in the year
WPC 14127/11
1991 and that he was validly approved from
09.10.1991 to 31.03.1992 and from 01.06.1992,
which has not been specifically adverted to by
the Government or by any other Educational
Authorities.
8. Further, the staff fixation order of
the year 2002-2003 was based on the
aforementioned Government Order dated
28.10.1995 but the provisions of the Statute
had not been amended at that time. It is
conceded by the Government that the amendment
was brought in only subsequently, as per
which, the aforementioned Government Order had
been validated but it is obvious that said
amendment takes effect only from 28.10.1995.
This relevant aspect has also not been
considered by the Government while issuing
Ext.P8 order.
9. I am, therefore, of the firm view that
Ext.P8 cannot find my favour and that the
WPC 14127/11
matter will have to be reconsidered by the
Government appropriately. That apart, the
finding in Ext.P8 - that the petitioner cannot
be granted benefit of protection because he
was approved only on provisional basis in view
of an interim order of this Court - cannot
also be held against him, since his approval
was based on extant and applicable Statutes
available at that time.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this
Writ Petition and set aside Ext.P8; with a
consequential direction to the Government to
reconsider the claim of the petitioner, after
affording him as also the Manager an
opportunity of being heard - either physically
or through videoconferencing - thus
culminating in an appropriate order thereon,
as expeditiously as is possible, but not later
than four months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
WPC 14127/11
Needless to say, after the afore exercise,
if the petitioner is found eligible for any
benefits, same shall be disbursed to him
without any further delay, but not later than
three months from the date of the resultant
order, issued as per the afore directions.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RR JUDGE
WPC 14127/11
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.1653/92/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER
1991-92 OF THE SCHOOL
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER
2002-03 OF THE SCHOOL
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.2691/03/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.3381/2001/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.5507/04/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HO'BLE
COURT IN W.A.NO.276/2004.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.1184/2011/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.
