Kerala High Court
The Manager vs State Of Kerala on 14 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 18833 OF 2018
PETITIONERS:
1 THE MANAGER
AMLP SCHOOL, AMAYOOR P.O., PATTAMBI-676123.
2 SHEEJA ABDULLA
LG ARABIC TEACHER, AMLP SCHOOL, AMAYOOR,
PATTAMBI-679 303.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD
SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR
SRI.A.RENJIT
SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
OFFICE OF THE DPI, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION.
PALAKKAD-678014.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER
OTTAPALAM-679 101, PALAKKAD.
5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
PATTAMBI-679 303, PALAKKAD.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18833 OF 2018
2
JUDGMENT
The Manager of the "AMLP School", Pattambi, and a Lower
Grade Arabic Teacher appointed by him, have approached this
Court through this writ petition impugning the endorsement on
Ext.P1 appointment order of the latter, wherein, she has been
granted approval only on daily wages as per the Circular of the
Government dated 03.05.2016. The petitioners have produced the
said Circular as Ext.P2 and they contend that the provisions
therein are contrary to the statutory mandate under Rule 2A,
Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules (KER for short).
2. The specific case of the petitioners is that, as per the
aforementioned provision of the KER, when there are 15 students
but not below 29, studying Arabic, one full time post of Arabic
teacher becomes available to the School and that this has been
completely jettisoned by the Educational Authorities while issuing
the endorsement on Ext.P1 and relying on Ext.P2 Circular.
3. The petitioners, therefore, pray that Ext.P1, to the extent
impugned and Ext.P2 Circular which is contrary to Rule 2A,
Chapter XXIII of the KER, be struck down and the competent
Educational Authorities be directed to grant approval to the 2 nd
petitioner on substantive basis with effect from 01.06.2017.
WP(C) NO. 18833 OF 2018
4. I have heard Sri.T.T.Muhamood, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri.P.M.Manoj, learned
Government Pleader, appearing for the official respondents.
5. Sri.P.M.Manoj, learned Senior Government Pleader,
submitted that the contentions of the petitioners are wholly without
basis because, unless there are 60 students in aggregate in an
'uneconomic school', a post of Arabic teacher cannot be granted on
full time basis. He submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P4 staff
fixation order, there are only 31 students in the School in question
and therefore, that the educational Authority was justified in
making Ext.P1 endorsement granting approval to the 2 nd petitioner
only on daily wages. The learned Senior Government Pleader,
therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
6. When I consider the afore submissions, there can be no
doubt that, normally, no Circular or proceedings of any
Educational Authority can be contrary to the statutory prescriptions
under the KER. The petitioners are relying upon Rule 2A, Chapter
XXIII of the KER to assert that when there are 15 but below 29
students studying Arabic in a Lower Primary School, a full time
post of Arabic teacher becomes mandatory.
7. However, the stand of the Government is that the School
WP(C) NO. 18833 OF 2018
in question is an 'uneconomic one' and, therefore, that only the
mandate of Ext.P2 Circular would apply, which is to mean, that
there must be a minimum of sixty students studying there, out of
which 28 will have to study Arabic.
8. However, what is pertinent in this case is that even as
per Ext.P4 staff fixation order, there are 31 students shown to be
studying Arabic; and therefore, prima facie, the mandate of Rule
2A, Chapter XXIII of the KER is attracted.
9. That said, this aspect has not been considered by any of
the competent Authorities; but the Assistant Educational Officer
(AEO) has proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioners relying
on Ext.P2 but without adverting to the provisions of the KER.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and
direct the AEO to reconsider approval of appointment of the second
petitioner as per Ext.P1, taking into account the provisions of Rule
2A, Chapter XXIII of the KER and after affording an opportunity of
being heard to the petitioners - either physically or through video
conferencing - thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as
expeditiously as is possible.
I make it clear that though I have not set aside the
endorsement on Ext.P1 as of now, I expect the AEO to properly re-
WP(C) NO. 18833 OF 2018
consider it; and to modify it appropriately if it is so found warranted
under the statutory prescriptions.
The afore exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as is
possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment and the resultant orders communicated to
the petitioners without any avoidable delay.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
WP(C) NO. 18833 OF 2018
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18833/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2017
ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.H(2)/25700/2015 DATED
03.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS/B4/0071/2018 DATED
16.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF-FIXATION ORDER
NO.L.DIS/F/2780/2017 DATED 13.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT.
