Rajanimol K. S. vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 10254 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 10254 Ker
Judgement Date : 26 March, 2021

Kerala High Court

Rajanimol K. S. vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2021

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.5813 OF 2021(B)


PETITIONER:

               RAJANIMOL K. S., AGED 38 YEARS
               W/O. SIJU P. M., HINDI TEACHER, S.N.G.U.P.S.,
               KAKKATHURUTHY, (RESIDING AT POTTANANIYIL HOUSE,
               PANANGAD P. O., MATHILMULA, MATHILAKAM,
               PIN - 680 685.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD
               SRI.A.RENJIT
               SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR
               SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD
               SHRI.T.R.VISHNU

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
               GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
               SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

      2        THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
               DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014.

      3        THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
               OFFICE OF THE AEO, IRINJALAKKUDA,
               THRISSUR - 680 121.

      4        THE MANAGER, SNGS UPS, KAKKATHURUTHY,
               EDATHIRINJI - 680 122.

               SRI.P.M.MANOJ-SR.GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
26.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 5813/21
                                      2



                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that she was appointed

in a substantive vacancy of Junior Language

Teacher (Hindi), by the Manager of

'S.N.G.U.P.S', Kakkathuruthy; but that when

Ext.P5 appointment order was issued, it was

shown to be on daily wages. She says that she

does not know why her appointment has been

granted by the Manager on daily wages, except

that perhaps she was guided by the earlier

Government Order, namely GO(P)No.

104/2004/G.Edn, dated 10.06.2008, which

mandated that appointments made during the

midst of an academic year can be offered only

on daily wage basis.

2. The petitioner says that this position

has been drastically altered after the

judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in

Sneha Cherian v. State of Kerala [2013(1)KLT

755] and therefore, that the Manager ought to WPC 5813/21

have appointed her on a Scale-of-pay basis.

3. The petitioner, thereafter, submits

that, in fact, when Ext.P5 was presented

before the competent Educational Authority for

approval, it was rejected through Ext.P6,

saying that her appointment was irregular

because she has been appointed only on daily

wages though the post in question was a

substantive one. She points out that Ext.P6

also carries an additional reason that the

proposal for approval of her appointment is

belated by about 5 days which is only a

curable defect.

4. The petitioner, therefore, prays that

Exts.P5 and P6 be set aside and the Manager be

directed to issue a fresh order, appointing

her on scale-of-pay basis, within a time frame

to be fixed by this Court; and consequently

direct the competent educational Authority to

consider and approve the same as per law. WPC 5813/21

5. The afore submissions, made on behalf

of the petitioner by her learned counsel -

Sri.T.T.Muhamood, was answered by the learned

counsel appearing for the 4th respondent -

Manager, asserting that Ext.P5 had been issued

appointing the petitioner on daily wages

basis, since it was made with effect from

01.10.2019, being much after the academic year

had commenced in June of the said year. The

learned counsel submitted that, therefore, the

Manager had no other option but to show the

petitioner's appointment to be on daily wage

basis and prayed that this writ petition be

dismissed.

6. The learned Senior Government

Pleader - Sri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that Ext.P6

order has been issued by the Assistant

Educational Officer (AEO), Irinjalakkuda,

finding that petitioner's appointment on daily

wage basis was irregular, since it is a WPC 5813/21

regular post. He submitted that since the

Manager had submitted the proposal with delay,

this was also a reason stated in Ext.P6 to

reject the approval of the petitioner. He,

therefore, prayed that this writ petition be

dismissed.

7. When I consider the afore rival

contentions, it is clear that impression of

the Manager that petitioner could have been

appointed only on daily wage basis since she

was offered appointment with effect from

01.10.2019, does not appear to be, prima

facie, now tenable in view of the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sneha Cherian

(supra), as also Nair Service Society v. State

of Kerala and Others [2013 KHC 723].

8. Since the Manager has acted without

adverting to the above judgments, I am certain

that Ext.P5, to the extent to which the

petitioner has been offered appointment only WPC 5813/21

on daily wage basis, cannot find favour in

law. This is more so because, even the AEO has

rejected the said proposal, through Ext.P6

order, saying that since the post is

substantive, appointment of the petitioner

could not have been made on daily wage basis.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this

writ petition and set aside Ext.P5 appointment

Order, to the extent to which it grants the

petitioner's appointment only on daily wage

basis; with a consequential direction to the

Manager of the School to issue an appropriate

order, adverting to Sneha Cherian (supra) and

Nair Service Society (supra).

The afore exercise shall be completed by

the Manager, as expeditiously as is possible,

but not later than two weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment; and the

proposal for approval of the petitioner on

such basis shall be forwarded to the WPC 5813/21

jurisdictional AEO within a period of two

weeks thereafter.

On the AEO receiving the proposal for

approval of appointment of the petitioner as

afore, he shall consider the same after

affording the Manager and the petitioner an

opportunity of being heard - either physically

or through video conferencing - particularly

with respect to the other defects noted in

Ext.P6, which shall be answered by the Manager

and the petitioner, as they are advised; and

thereafter, said Authority will issue

appropriate orders on the proposal as per law

without any avoidable delay but within two

months after it reaches him.

Sd/-

                                         DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
       RR                                         JUDGE
 WPC 5813/21




                            APPENDIX
       PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

       EXHIBIT P1        TRUE COPY OF DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF

RASHTRABHASHA VISARADH AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE DEKSHINA BHARAT HINDI PRACHAR SABHA, MADRAS ON 19.02.2019.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF RASHTRABHASHA PRAVEEN AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE DAKSHINA BHARAT HINDI PRACHAR SABHA, MADRAS ON 23.03.2019.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF DIPLOMA IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION CERTIFICATE DATED 12.11.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF K.TET CERTIFICATE DATED 19.10.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS (K.TET), DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER 01.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS HINDI TEACHER IN S.N.G.U.P.S. KAKKATHURUTHI AGAINST THE RETIREMENT VACANCY OF SMT. V. R. SASIKALA.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.C/16790/2019 DATED 31.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT (WITH TYPED COPY).

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT LR.NO.G.EDN-