Kerala High Court
Zareena.A vs The State Of Kerala on 2 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 6264 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
ZAREENA.A.,
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O. KUNHIMOHAMMED KADAVAN, KADAVAN HOUSE,
VALLUVAMBRAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-673 642
BY ADV K.RAKESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
THE DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
MALAPPURAM,PIN-676 505
4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
MALAPPURAM, MALAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-676 505
5 THE MANAGER,
A.M.U.P.SCHOOL, VALLUVAMBRAM P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT,PIN-673 642
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).31095/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)Nos.6264 & 31095/2019 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 31095 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
SMITHA S.,
AGED 44 YEARS
D/O.NAKULAN S., 'SWARAM', AZHINHILAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV K.RAKESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN- 695014.
2 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN- 676505.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KOTTAPADI, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN- 676519.
4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
VENGARA, MALAPPURAM, PIN- 676304.
5 THE MANAGER,
AKHMUPS, CHATHRATHODI, PARAMBILPEEDIKA P.O.,
MALAPPURAM, PIN- 676317.
6 THE HEADMASTER,
AKHMUPS, CHATHRATHODI, PARAMBILPEEDIKA P.O.,
MALAPPURAM, PIN- 676317.
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).6264/2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)Nos.6264 & 31095/2019 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in these two cases - which
have been heard together on account of identical
nature of the factual circumstances pleaded and
reliefs sought - are stated to be working as
teachers and have approached this Court impugning
the orders issued by the competent Educational
Authorities, either rejecting or interdicting
fixation of pay scale, reckoning their earlier
broken service in another School under different
management.
2. Sri.Rakesh K., learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners in both these cases, submitted
that the issues impelled herein have already been
answered by a learned Judge of this Court in
Khadeeja A. vs. State of Kerala and another [2014
(4) KLT 349]. He added that this judgment has been
produced as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.31095/2019 and
argued that it has been held by this Court that
teachers like the petitioners herein are entitled
to have pay fixed, reckoning their previous
service, on account of Rule 61,Chapter XIVA of the
Kerala Education Rules (KER for short) and the
Government Order dated 25/03/2006. The learned
counsel, therefore, prayed that these writ
petitions be allowed and the impugned
order/proceedings be set aside.
3. In response Sri.P.M.Manoj - learned Senior
Government Pleader, submitted that the singular
issue in these cases is whether petitioners had
accepted their subsequent employment in the
present schools, after serving broken periods of
service in different schools earlier, obtaining
the permission of the competent Educational
Authority and that this is crucial because the
provisions of Rule 11, Chapter XIVA of KER is
vitally attracted. He argued that as per Rule
11(1), a teacher serving in a school can be
transferred to another only with the previous
approval of the District Educational Officer (DEO
for short) and with the consent of the schools.
He submitted that there is nothing on record to
show that any such consent had been obtained by
the petitioners or by the Managements of the
schools where they are presently working, from the
competent DEO to enable their transfer. He,
therefore, argued that the orders impugned in
these cases are without fault and that the
competent Educational Authorities were without
error in having objected to and denying the
weightage claimed by the petitioners with respect
to their earlier broken services under different
managements.
4. Sri.K.Rakesh, in reply, submitted that the
afore argument of the learned Senior Government
Pleader can be of no avail because, in Khadeeja A.
(Supra), this Court has already declared that
right of a teacher to claim the weightage of the
earlier broken periods of service in different
schools is not referable to Rule 10 or Rule 11 of
Chapter XIVA of the KER, but is based on Rule 61,
Chapter XIVA thereof, read with the Government
Order bearing number G.O(P)No.145/2006/Fin. dated
25/03/2006. He, therefore, vehemently submitted
that the contention of non-compliance of Rule 11,
even if true, cannot stand in the way of the
petitioners being granted their legitimate claims.
He then added to this submission by saying that,
in any event of the matter, going by the impugned
orders/proceedings in these cases, there is not
even a whisper that petitioners have been denied
weightage of their broken service on account of
violation of Rule 11(1), Chapter XIVA of the KER.
He, therefore, prayed that these writ petitions be
allowed.
5. I find substantial force in the afore
submissions of Sri.K.Rakesh because, as rightly
stated by him, in Khadeeja A.(Supra), this Court
had declared unequivocally that right of a teacher
to claim weightage of previous broken service in a
different school, is not referable to Rule 10 or
Rule 11 of Chapter XIVA of the KER, but flows from
Rule 61, Chapter XIVA thereof, juxtaposed by the
mandate of the Government Order referred above.
Obviously, therefore, even if, for the sake of
argument, it is assumed that petitioners were
transferred to their present school without
following the mandate of Rule 11(1) of Chapter
XIVA of the KER, it would not stand in the way of
their claim being acceded to.
6. That said, from any angle, as also rightly
contended by Sri.K.Rakesh, even the impugned
orders/proceedings before this Court do not show
that petitioners' claims have been interdicted or
denied on account of violation of Rule 11(1),
Chapter XIVA of the KER. I cannot, therefore, find
favour with the submissions of the learned Senior
Government Pleader.
In the afore circumstances, following the
judgment of this Court in Khadeeja A. (Supra), I
deem it appropriate to allow these writ petitions.
Consequently,
(a) W.P.(C).No.31095/2019 is allowed and
respondents 1 to 4 are directed to issue
appropriate orders, reckoning the earlier broken
service of the petitioner in a different school,
for calculation of service weightage and
increment, de hors the objections in Ext.P2; and
to issue such orders as expeditiously as is
possible, but not later than three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(b) W.P.(C).No.6264/2019 is allowed and Ext.P3
is set aside. Consequently, the competent official
respondents are directed to issue appropriate
orders reckoning the earlier broken service of the
petitioner in a different school; and to issue
such orders as expeditiously as is possible, but
not later than three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/07.07
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6264/2019
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION
OF PAY IN THE HIGHER GRADE ISSUED ORDER
DECLARING THE PROBATION OF THE
PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION
OF PAY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED,27-7-
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
DATED,31.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT WITH NO.C/5468/2018
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31095/2019
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE
HEADMASTER OF THE SCHOOL TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED
BY THE 4TH DATED 30.01.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN KHADEEJA A
VS.STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER CITED IN
2014(4)KLT 349.
