Kerala High Court
Latha P.G vs The Director General Of Education ... on 8 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 29130 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
LATHA P.G.
VOCATIONAL TEACHER IN GENERAL INSURANCE SREE NARAYANA
VILASAM VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL (SNVVHSS)
ALOOR, THRISSUR-680 681
BY ADVS.
N.D.PREMACHANDRAN
SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION (DGE) VHSC
DIRECTORATE, 3RD FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI
NAGAR, PULIMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR, CIVIL STATION, CITY P.O, CHEMPUKAVU,
THRISSUR-680 020
3 THE MANAGER,
SREE NARAYANA VILASAM VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL (SNVVHSS), ALOOR, THRISSUR-680 683.
4 SMT. PUSHPALATHA P.M,
NON VOCATIONAL TEACHER, SREE NARAYANA VILASAM
VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL (SNVVHSS) ALOOR,
THRISSUR-680 681
5 SMT. SEENA K.K.
NON VOCATIONAL TEACHER, SREE NARAYANA VILASAM
VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL (SNVVHSS), ALOOR,
THRISSUR-680 681
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT
WP(C) NO. 29130 OF 2019
2
SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 29130 OF 2019
3
JUDGMENT
A Vocational Teacher in "General Insurance" in "Sree Narayana
Vilasam Vocational Higher Secondary School", Aloor, has filed this writ
petition, impugning Ext.P15 order of the Director of Public Instructions
[now re-designated as the Director of General Education (DGE)],
declining the request to place her as senior in the seniority list of
Vocational and Non-vocational Teachers, ahead of respondents 4 and 5.
2. The specific contention of the petitioner is that respondents 4
and 5 commenced service as Non- vocational Teachers on 16.08.1993 on
consolidated pay and not on a scale of pay and that they continued to be so
until Ext.P2 order was issued by the Government on 26.09.1995, which
provided for sanctioning of Scale of Pay to the various Non-vocational
Teachers working in the State.
3. The petitioner says that, as per Ext.P2, Non-vocational Teachers
having workload of 12 to 20 hours, along with marginal excess, were to be
treated as Full Time Teachers with a sanctioned scale of pay of Rs.2,000 -
3,200 per month; while those with less than 12 hours were treated as Part
WP(C) NO. 29130 OF 2019
Time Teachers. She says that, therefore, respondents 4 and 5 continued as
teachers on consolidated wages without a scale of pay until Ext.P2 had
been issued, but that in the meanwhile, she was appointed on 08.08.1994
as Vocational Teacher on the pay scale of Rs.2060 - Rs.3200 per month.
The petitioner asserts that, therefore, it is indubitable that she is senior to
respondents 4 and 5 - having been admitted to service in a scale of pay on
08.08.1994; while respondents 4 and 5 having continued merely on
consolidated wages at least under Ext.P2 order of the Government dated
26.09.1995.
4. The petitioner submits that, however, when Ext.P10 Seniority
List was prepared by the 3rd respondent - Manager of the School, it
shockingly showed respondents 4 and 5 to be senior to her and that she,
therefore, preferred a representation against the same before the competent
Authorities; and that when it was not considered, she approached this
Court to obtain Ext.P14 judgment, whereby, directions were given to the
DGE to consider her objections and to issue appropriate orders. The
petitioner says that even though the afore facts were brought specifically to
the notice of the DGE, he has now issued Ext.P15 order dated 24.09.2019,
WP(C) NO. 29130 OF 2019
again holding that respondents 4 and 5 are senior to her. The petitioner,
therefore, prays that Ext.P15 order be set aside.
5. I have heard Sri.N.D.Premachandran - learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner; Sri.N.Unnikrishnan - learned counsel
appearing for respondents 4 and 5; Sri.P.M.Manoj - learned Senior
Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2.
6. Sri.N.D.Premachandran began his submissions by saying that,
apart from the afore contentions, his client has also an additional legal
assertion that, going by the provisions of Rule 28(b)(7)(vi) of the Kerala
State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS&SSR), when there are more than
one feeder categories carrying different scales of pay, they will have to be
shown in separate lists and that persons in lower scales of pay shall be
appointed only after appointing all persons in a higher scale of pay. He
submitted that, therefore, in this case since it is admitted that his client
began her service as a senior teacher in the scale of pay of Rs.2060 -
3200, respondents 4 and 5 cannot seek to be promoted ahead of her
because they were admittedly accommodated to the scale of pay of 2000 -
3200, only when they were given the said benefit consequent to Ext.P2.
WP(C) NO. 29130 OF 2019
Sri.N.D.Premachandran, therefore, prayed that Ext.P15 be found to be at
fault, on this ground also; and that 3 rd respondent - Manager be directed to
recast the seniority list taking note of these submissions.
7. Sri.N.Unnikrishnan - learned counsel appearing for
respondents 4 and 5, began his submissions to the above contentions of the
petitioner, taking me through the history of evolution of the Non-
vocational stream in Kerala. He pointed out that in the year 1991, teachers
were appointed on daily wages, then leading to them being paid
consolidated wages and that subsequently, through Ext.P2 - Government
Order dated 26.09.1995, they being favoured with a scale of pay; with Full
Time Teachers being described as those who had a workload of 12 to 20
hours, and those with less than 12 hours being described as Part Time
Teachers. He then submitted that even though Ext.P2 was dated
26.09.1995, the benefit of the said order was directed to be given with
effect from 08.06.1992, as per GO(Rt)No.990/2001/G.Edn dated
15.03.2001.
8. Sri.N.Unnikrishnan submitted that his clients were entitled to
be granted the Full Time scale of pay from the date on which they were
WP(C) NO. 29130 OF 2019
accommodated to 12 hours of work and that this was with effect from
04.07.1994. He then invited my attention to Ext.P10 Seniority List to
show that both his clients were granted Part Time Scale of Pay with effect
from 16.08.1993 and Full Time Scale of Pay from 04.07.1994, to assert
that, therefore, they are, in any manner of looking at it, senior to the
petitioner, who entered the service only on 08.08.1994.
9. On the further contention of the petitioner, that only a person on
a higher scale of pay can be considered for appointment to the post of
Principal, is concerned, Sri.N.Unnikrishnan took me through the
declarations in Ext.P16 judgment of this Court, wherein, it has been
mandated that only when a junior teacher becomes a senior teacher, would
his service seniority commence and that the senior most among the
Vocational Teachers and Non-vocational Teachers in a School will be
entitled to be appointed as the Administrator Head/Principal. He added to
this submission asserting that this judgment was, in fact, sought to be
reviewed by certain parties, which finally led to Ext.R4(b) judgment being
delivered, wherein, it was further reiterated that while considering who is
the senior most among the categories of Vocational Teachers and Non-
WP(C) NO. 29130 OF 2019
vocational Teachers, the length of service alone can be considered and
nothing else. Sri.N.Unnikrishnan also tried to show me from Ext.R4(b)
that prescription of workload is not a relevant factor for deciding the
seniority or entitlement to be appointed as the Administrator
Head/Principal, thus concluding his submissions arguing that, as long as
his clients' grant of Scale of Pay as Full Time Teachers with effect from
04.07.1994 remains uncontested, petitioner cannot challenge Ext.P10
seniority list or Ext.P15 order issued by the DGE. He, therefore, prayed
that this writ petition be dismissed.
10. The learned Senior Government Pleader - Sri.P.M.Manoj,
submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed by the 1 st respondent,
wherein, history of the evolution of the non-vocational stream in Kerala
has been described; and thus affirmed that petitioner entered service only
on 08/08/1994, much after respondents 4 and 5 were appointed as Non-
vocational Teacher on 16.08.1993, on a consolidated pay of Rs.1000/-. He
then argued that there is no post of Principal in Vocational Higher
Secondary School as per Special Rules, but to deal with the administrative
matters, the senior most Vocational/Non-vocational Teacher will be placed
WP(C) NO. 29130 OF 2019
as "Administrative Head", by providing a special allowance, which is
mandated by the Government Order dated 19.01.2012. He then explained
that such "Administrative Heads" are termed as "Principal" by the
Accountant General only for the purpose of convenience. He continued
that the crucial criteria for preparing the seniority list is the date on which
the incumbent entered service and when more than one teacher so enters
on the same day, their date of birth will be considered, based on the
applicable Government Order. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition
be dismissed confirming Ext.P15.
11. When I evaluate the afore contentions of the rival parties, it is
manifest that petitioner's claim is that she entered service on 08.08.1994
on a Scale of Pay as Vocational Teacher, while respondents 4 and 5 entered
service only as Non-vocational Teachers on consolidated pay. Even if I am
to accept the argument of Sri.N.D.Premachandran, learned counsel for the
petitioner, that respondents 4 and 5 initially entered service on
consolidated pay or as Part Time Teachers, the fact remains that, as is
evident from Ext.P10 Seniority List, they were given the benefit of Full
Time scale of pay with effect from 04.07.1994. It is also true that, initially,
WP(C) NO. 29130 OF 2019
when the non-vocational stream was introduced in Kerala, no Scale of Pay
was offered to the teachers and they worked either on daily wages or on
consolidated pay; but through Ext.P2 Government Order of the year 1995,
Scale of Pay was offered to the teachers, categorising them as "Full Time
Teachers" and "Part Time Teachers". Subsequently, by the aforementioned
Government Order No.GO(Rt) No.990/2001/G.Edn Dated 15.03.2001 the
benefits under Ext.P2 Government Order was directed to be given to them
with effect from 08.06.1992.
12. Pertinently, none of the aforementioned Government Orders are
under challenge nor have there been assailed by the petitioner at any point
of time. Based on these Government Orders, respondents 4 and 5 were
given Scale of Pay as Full Time Non-vocational Teacher, with effect from
04.07.1994, which is much ahead than the date on which the petitioner
entered service.
13. Now coming to the contentions of Sri.N.D.Premachandran, that
the provisions of Rule 28 of the KS&SSR are attracted to this case is
concerned, the fact remains that it has been declared by this Court through
Exts.P16, P17 and R4(b) judgments that when appointing the
WP(C) NO. 29130 OF 2019
Administrative Head of a Vocational Higher Secondary School, the
combined seniority of the Vocational and Non-vocational Teachers will
have to be taken into account. This is without doubt because, this Court
has already held emphatically that the senior most among these teachers,
based on their length of service, will have to be chosen; and this is
particularly important because, as rightly stated by the learned
Government Pleader, there is no post of Principal, as per the Special Rules
and the incumbent is designated as an "Administrative Head", based on
seniority and nothing else.
14. Obviously, therefore, to say that a combined seniority list of
Vocational Teachers and Non-vocational Teachers cannot be prepared,
because they fall into different Scales of Pay, would be in-opportunate in
this case because, if that is to be accepted, then obviously, only Vocational
Teachers can be granted the opportunity of being "Administrative Heads,"
at the expense of the Non-vocational Teachers, whose pay scale is
marginally lower. This was not the intent of this Court when Ext.P16 or
Ext.R4(b) judgments, were delivered, wherein it has been made luculent
that both Vocational and Non-vocational Teachers are entitled to be given
WP(C) NO. 29130 OF 2019
the opportunity to be Administrative Heads, solely based on seniority,
reckoning their date of entry in service.
15. However, I must add here that when the seniority is to be so
reckoned, it is the date of entry into the Senior Scale of Pay, which is to be
reckoned and therefore, respondents 4 and 5 cannot claim that they were
on such a scale of pay with effect from 16.08.1993, as rightly submitted by
the learned Government Pleader, but they are certainly entitled to the
benefits with effect from 04.07.1994, when they were admitted to a Pay
Scale as Full Time Non-vocational Teachers. This position has not been
altered consequent to the coming into force of the "Kerala Vocational
Higher Secondary Educational State Service Rules, 2004" or the
Subordinate Service Rules; and the position continues that it is the senior
most Vocational/Non-vocational Teacher who will have to be appointed as
the Administrative Head. Indubitably, therefore, the arguments of
Sri.N.D.Permachandran edificed on Rule 28 of the KS&SSR will not and
cannot apply to this case on account of the declarations of law made by
this Court in the aforementioned judgments.
16. That being so concluded, as long as the petitioner has not
WP(C) NO. 29130 OF 2019
challenged grant of Scale of Pay as Full Time Teachers to respondents 4
and 5 with effect from 04.07.1994, she cannot claim that she is senior to
them merely because she entered service in a Scale of Pay applicable to a
senior teacher. Unfortunately for her, once the Scale of Pay of Full Time
Teacher was granted to respondents 4 and 5 with effect from 04.07.1994,
they became eligible for being appointed as the "Administrative
Head"/Principal, along with other Vocational Teachers in the School, on
account of the law declared by this Court in Exts.P16, P17 and R4(b)
judgments.
In the afore circumstances, I cannot find fault with Ext.P15 order or
Ext.P10 Seniority List; and consequently, have no other option but to
dismiss this writ petition, finding it to be without merits.
This writ petition is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
SAS/08/07/2021
WP(C) NO. 29130 OF 2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29130/2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF G.O(MS) NO. 53/91/G.EDN. DATED
30.3.1991.
EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF G.O (MS) NO. 460/95/G.EDN.
DATED 26.9.1995.
EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF G.O(MS) NO. 18/2012/G.EDN.
DATED 19.1.2012.
EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO. 339/2012/G.EDN.
DATED 20.10.2012.
EXHIBIT P5 A COPY OF G.O(E) NO. 3/15845/12 DATED
3.11.2012.
EXHIBIT P6 A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE THEN
DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION DATED 3.2.1995.
EXHIBIT P7 A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 5.9.2018.
EXHIBIT P8 A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
26.9.2018 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
19.8.2018 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 A COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST.
EXHIBIT P11 A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
6.12.2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 19.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P13 A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
20.2.2019 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST
WP(C) NO. 29130 OF 2019
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.
15545 OF 2019 DATED 17.6.2019 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P15 A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.9.2019
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.09.2012
IN W.A. NO. 1424 OF 2012 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
EXHIBIT P17 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.6.2014 IN
W.A. NO. 961 OF 2013 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-
Exhibit R4(A) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22/06/2012 IN
TA NO.3014/2012.
Exhibit R4(B) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22/08/2016 IN
RP NO.1125/2012 IN WA NO.1424/2012 AND
CONNECTED PETITIONS.
Exhibit R4(C) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. C2/6483/12
DATED 25/06/2013.
Exhibit R4(D) A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
29/07/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.4.
Exhibit R4(E) A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
22/08/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.5.
Exhibit R4(F) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. E3/1119/2003(1)
28/04/2003 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R4(G) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E3/1119/2003(2)
29/04/2003 ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R4(H) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. E2/9727/93/DVHSE
WP(C) NO. 29130 OF 2019
DATED 21/10/1993.
Exhibit R4(I() A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.
2495/04/GIN, EDN. DATED 17/06/2004.
Exhibit R4(J) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. E3/10147/2003
DATED 23/08/2004.
Exhibit R4(K) A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. E3/10147/2003
DATED 19/12/2005.
Exhibit R4(L) A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11/04/2017
IN WPC NO. 19500/2012 AND CONNECTED
CASES.
Exhibit R4(M) A TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 990/2001/G.EDN.
DATED 15/03/2001.
Exhibit R4(N) A TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.18/2012/G.EDN.
DATED 19/01/2012.
Exhibit R4(O) A TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 339/2012/G.EDN.
DATED 20/10/2012.
Exhibit R4(P) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER C2/18300/12 DATED
10/01/2013.
Exhibit R4(Q) A TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. F.
NO. 62-1/2012/NCTE (N&S) DATED
12/11/2014.
Exhibit R4(R) A TRUE COPY OF APPROVED SENIORITY LIST OF
2017 OF TEACHERS IN THE SNV VHS SCHOOL,
ALOOR.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
