Kerala High Court
Sreelethika B.S. vs State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 2 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.22173 OF 2012(V)
PETITIONER:
SREELETHIKA B.S., UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL
ASSISTANT, PRW HIGHER SECONDARYSCHOOL,
KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 572.
BY ADVS.SRI.B.RAGHUNATHAN
SRI.M.M.LALBIND
SRI.M.SALIM
SRI.R.SRINATH
SRI.VIPIN VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695014.
3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 121.
4 MANAGER PRW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 572.
R1 TO R3 BY SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 22173/12 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 2nd day of March 2021
The petitioner says that she was originally appointed as an
Upper Primary School Assistant in PRW Higher Secondary School,
Kattakkada, Thiruvananthapuram, in a short term vacancy from
21.12.2000 to 23.02.2001 and that it had been validly approved. She
says that she was then appointed as a High School Assistant (Maths)
in a leave vacancy from 27.08.2002 to 31.10.2002, but that this spell
was disapproved by the District Educational Officer (DEO) on the
ground that the vacancy available in the school was that of a HSA
(English) and not in Mathematics.
2. The petitioner says that at the relevant time, as is evident
from Exhibits P9 and P10, High School Teachers in Mathematics were
also entitled to teach English and therefore, that the objection against
her appointment was untenable. She further submits that her
approval was declined also for the reason that, since she was earlier
approved in the post of UPSA, she cannot be reckoned as a Rule 51A
claimant for the purpose of appointment as a HSA, though this aspect
has already been decided and settled by this Court in a catena of
judgments, making it without doubt that teachers having earlier
approved service in the post of UPSA is entitled to be appointed as an
HSA under Rule 51A Chapter XIVA of the KER.
3. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the impugned orders,
namely Exhibits P3 to P5, P7 and P8, be set aside and her approval in
the post of HSA (Maths) in the school between 27.08.2002 and
31.10.2002 be directed to be approved.
4. In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader
conceded that the objection that the petitioner cannot be construed
as a Rule 51A claimant, because her earlier approval was in the post
of UPSA, is no longer tenable, but submitted that the question
whether she was entitled to be appointed as an HSA (Maths) when
the post of HSA (English) was only available in the school is still
relevant. He submitted that since the petitioner is qualified as a
Maths teacher and not as an English teacher, the Manager could not
have appointed her to the post of HSA (English), which alone was
available in the school during the relevant period. He, therefore,
prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
5. I have considered the afore submissions and have also
examined the impugned orders.
6. Since the learned Senior Government Pleader now
concedes that the issue of Rule 51A claimant is no longer res integra,
I do not propose to speak on it at all.
7. As regards the question of the petitioner having been
appointed in the vacancy of HSA (English) during the relevant period
is concerned, it is evident from Exhibits P9 and P10, which covered
the field at the relevant time, teachers in core subjects were also
entitled to teach English. Since the petitioner is concededly a teacher
in Maths, her entitlement to do so cannot be now questioned. Of
course, this position has undergone a sea change subsequently, but
what we are concerned about is the position at the time when the
petitioner seeks approval pursuant to her appointment as HSA
(Maths) between 27.08.2002 and 31.10.2002. During this period it is
without doubt that Exhibits P9 and P10 certainly applied to all
teachers.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set
aside Exhibits P3 to P5, P7 and P8 orders; with a consequential
direction to the third respondent - District Educational Officer to
reconsider the proposal for approval of the petitioner as HSA (Maths)
in the school in question between 27.08.2002 and 31.10.2002 and
issue appropriate orders thereon, if she is otherwise qualified, but de
hors the objections that have already been answered in this judgment.
The afore exercise shall be completed by the DEO, as
expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the resultant benefits
shall also be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of one month
thereafter.
Sd/-
Devan Ramachandran, Judge
tkv
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 27.8.2002
ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT
EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING CERTIFICATE DATED 6.1.2007
ISSUED BY THE HEADMISTRESS OF THE SCHOOL
EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.7.2006 ISSUED BY THE
THIRD RESPONDENT
EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.5.2008 ISSUED BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT
EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(Rt)NO.5640/2008/G.EDN. DATED
24.12.2008
EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW DATED 22.1.2009
SUBMITTED TO FIRST RESPONDENTS
EXT. P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.3.2009 ISSUED BY THE
FIRST RESPONDENT
EXT. P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE
FIRST RESPONDENT
EXT. P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 26.2.2003 OF THE FIRST
RESPONDENT
EXT. P10 TRUE COPY OF GO(MS)NO.132/09/G.EDN. DATED 17.6.2009
EXT. P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVE LETTER DATED 1.8.2002 WITH
ENDORSEMENT OF SANCTION
EXT. P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.8.2002 OF SMT.CHITRA P,
UPSA TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
