Anulopa V vs The Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 13480 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 18502 OF 2014
PETITIONER:
           ANULOPA V., AGED 48 YEARS
           W/O.A.P.MUKUNDAN, ABHIRAMAM, MOKERI P.O., KANNUR
           DISTRICT.

            BY ADV SRI.CIBI THOMAS


RESPONDENTS:
     1     THE MANAGER
           PRMK HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOLAVALLOOR, KANNUR
           DISTRICT-670650.

    2       THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
            THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670101.

    3       THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
            SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    4       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL
            EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    5       T.P.PREETHA
            HSA (MATHEMATICS), PRMK HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
            KOLAVALLOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 650.

    6       V.RANJITH
            HSA (MATHEMATICS), PRMK HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
            KOLAVALLOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 650.

    7       PRAKASH BABU
            HSA (SOCIAL SCIENCE), PRMK HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
            KOLAVALLOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 650.

            SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
            SRI.P.M.PAREETH
            SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP


THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 18502 OF 2014

                                    2


                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that she has been working as a

High School Teacher in Social Science from 07.06.2001 in

the services of the "PRMK Higher Secondary School",

Kannur.

2. The petitioner says that as per Ext.P1 staff fixation

order for the year 2009-2010, respondents 5 and 6 were

retrenched from service for want of vacancy and that in

the same year, 13 other teachers were rendered surplus.

She says that out of these teachers, six including herself,

were accommodated in the post of HSA (English),

adopting the teacher-student ratio of 1:45 and following

the erstwhile subject ratio of 1:1:1. She says that since five

other teachers could have been retained only by adopting

1:40 teacher-student ratio, the same was also done.

3. The petitioner then adds that, however,

respondents 5 and 6 could not be saved from

retrenchment, either on the adoption of the ratio 1:1:1:1

or 1:1:1 and therefore, that they were thrown out on

15.07.2009. She submits that respondents 5 and 6

challenged this, which led to Ext.P2 order from the 3rd WP(C) NO. 18502 OF 2014

respondent - Director of Public Instructions (now

designated as the Director of General Education),

whereby, respondents 6 and 7 were retrenched; which, in

turn, led the 7th respondent to file a Revision Petition

before the 4th respondent - State of Kerala, followed by

filing W.P(C)No.17663/2011 before this Court, which

finally ended in Ext.P3 order being issued by the

Government.

4. The petitioner asserts that Ext.P3 order was

illegal, since it has set aside Ext.P2 and had upheld Ext.P1

order; but that the 6th respondent thereafter, submitted a

representation before the 4th respondent - State of Kerala,

which then issued Ext.P4 order, retrenching her as also

the 7th respondent, but interestingly, without setting aside

Ext.P3.

5. The petitioner alleges that Ext.P4 order is grossly

improper, since, for one, the 4th respondent - Government

has apparently sat in judgment over its own earlier Ext.P3

order illegally; and for the other, because it has been

issued without hearing her and without considering the WP(C) NO. 18502 OF 2014

fact that the fixation of subjects ought to have been based

on the ratio 1:1:1 and not 1:1:1:1, it being for the period

prior to 07.01.2002. The petitioner also has an

adscititious case that even if the ratio of 1:1:1:1 is applied,

she ought to have been retained in the post in question,

she being the senior-most among the High School

Assistants (Social Sciences) in the School. She, therefore,

prays that Ext.P4 be set aside, as also Ext.P5

consequential order; and to direct the respondents not to

recover any amounts from her salary for the academic

year 2009-10.

6. I have heard Sri.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner; Sri.P.M.Pareeth appearing for

the 5th respondent and Sri.P.M.Manoj, learned Senior

Government Pleader.

7. Upfront, I must record that I do not intend to go

into the merits of the rival contentions at this stage

because I notice that the primary contention of the

petitioner is that Ext.P4 has been issued by the

Government, modifying Ext.P3 order of theirs, without

hearing her, though granting such an opportunity to other WP(C) NO. 18502 OF 2014

teachers - including respondents 5 to 7. Sri.Praveen

Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact, submits

that the Government could not have issued Ext.P4 order in

the manner as has been done now, since it is his client who

has been wholly affected by the same and therefore, the

absence of an opportunity of hearing to her - to make her

views known before the Authority - renders the entire

exercise vitiated and unconstitutional.

8. Sri.P.M.Pareeth, learned counsel appearing for the

5th respondent and Sri.P.M.Manoj, learned Senior

Government Pleader, affirmed that Ext.P4 has been issued

without hearing the petitioner. They, however, submitted

that even if the petitioner had been heard, the position

would have been no different since, as has been stated

therein, she could not have been accommodated against

the vacancy in English, according to het rank in seniority.

9. Even though I have heard the learned counsel for

the 5th respondent and the learned Senior Government

Pleader as afore, the fact remains that it is the specific

case of the petitioner that, contrary to what has been done

through Ext.P4, the fixation ought to be done under the WP(C) NO. 18502 OF 2014

ratio of 1:1:1 and not as per the ratio 1:1:1:1. This issue

certainly has not been properly considered by the

Government, presumably because the petitioner was not

heard; and I am, therefore, of the firm view that the

matter will require to be reconsidered by the Government,

particularly because Ext.P4 has been issued on the

representation of the 6th respondent against Ext.P3 order

earlier issued by it and hence a legitimate contention is

impelled by the petitioner that the Government had no

power to review its own order as per the KER. This was,

therefore, all the more reason why the petitioner ought to

have been heard.

10. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ

petition and set aside Ext.P4, as also the consequential

Ext.P5 order; with a resultant direction to the competent

Authority of the 4th respondent - State of Kerala, to hear

the petitioner as also all other interested teachers,

including 6th respondent and the Manager of the School -

either physically or through video conferencing - thus

culminating in an appropriate fresh order, as expeditiously

as is possible, but not later than four months from the date WP(C) NO. 18502 OF 2014

of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While completing

this exercise, the Authority will also consider the

petitioner's contention that the Government has no power

to review its own earlier Ext.P3 order, based on Ext.P6

representation of the 6th respondent.

Needless to say, since I have already set aside

Exts.P4 and P5, no recovery shall be attempted from the

salary of the petitioner for the academic year 2009-10,

save in terms of the new order to be issued as per the

directions herein; and that too, only after affording all

necessary opportunities to him as per law.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

stu WP(C) NO. 18502 OF 2014

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18502/2014

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO.D.DIS./5412/49/B4 DT.29-8-2009.

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.RA(3)/77715/2009/DPI/D.DIS.DT.24-3-2011 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.1192/2012/G.EDN.DT.12-3-2012 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.

(RT)NO.232/2014/G.EDN. DT.16-1-2014 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO.B4/8306/12 DT.26-6-2014 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.125/2001/GEN.ED.DT.2-4-2001.