Kerala High Court
Friday vs State Of Kerala on 19 March, 2021
OP(KAT) 80/2021 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Present:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
Friday,the 19th day of March 2021/28th Phalguna, 1942
For information purpose only
OP(KAT) No.80/2021
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2019 IN OA No.1621/2015 of the
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, OFFICE
OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033.
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN THE O.A
DIVYA.S,,AGED 37 YEARS
W/O. R.RAJESH, PRINCIPAL, GOVERNEMNT HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL, VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAURAM, PIN-695 551, RESIDING
AT 'USHUS', T.C.4/1020, KOWDIAR JUNCTION, KOWDIAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003.
Op Kerala Administrative Tribunal praying inter alia that
in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed along with
the OP(KAT) the High Court be pleased to stay all the further
proceedings in pursuance to Exhibit P4 order till the final
disposal of the above original Petition(KAT) .
This petition coming on for admission on 19/03/2021 upon
perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support of
OP(KAT) and upon hearing the arguments of B.VINOD SENIOR
GOVERNMENT PLEADER, for the petitioners the court passed the
OP(KAT) 80/2021 2/8
following
For information purpose only
ALEXANDER THOMAS & K.BABU, JJ.
============================
O.P(KAT) No.80 of 2021
(arising out of the order dated 10.6.2019 in
O.A No.1621/2015
For information purpose only
============================
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2021
ORDER
Sri.B.Vinod, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing
for the petitioners submits that the main objection raised by the
petitioners herein (State of Kerala and others) as regards the
correctness of the directions issued by the Tribunal as per Ext.P4 final
order dated 10.6.2019 in O.A No.1621/2015 is that the Tribunal has
gone wrong in taking the view more particularly in paras 16, 17 and 23
of the impugned order that the ratio recidendi of the decisions of the
Apex Court in K.Madhavan v. Union of India [1987(4)SCC
566] and Sub Inspector Rooplal v. Lt.Governor [2000(1)SCC
644], would apply the facts of the case and that the Government has
made a fundamental mistake in issuing the impugned order in deviance
of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the aforecited decisions,
etc. The main ground of attack now made by the learned Senior
Government Pleader is that the abovesaid decisions of the Apex Court in
Madhavan's case [1987(4)SCC 566] and Rooplal's case
For information purpose only
[2000(1)SCC 644] as referred to paras 16 and 17 of the impugned
Ext.P4 final order , is that the said decision in the first case relates to the
deputation of other police personnel to the Central Bureau of
Investigation and the latter case deals with deputation of other police
personnel to the Delhi Police, etc. and the consistent practice in those
cases was that such police personnel from other police organizations
were sent on deputation to the employer organization like CBI and Delhi
Police, etc. and they used to be absorbed later and it is in the light of
these crucial factual aspects that the Apex Court has issued the
directions therein with the reasonings given therein and ratio recidendi
of those decisions will not apply in the instant case. For that purpose, it
is pointed out that the instant case, involves deputation of the original
applicant who was having lien in the post of Agricultural Officer in the
Agricultural Department, to the post of Vocational teacher in the
Vocational Higher Secondary Education Department and it was only an
adhoc temporary arrangement for deputing the personnel like the
petitioner, who was having lien in the Agricultural Department to serve
temporarily as Vocational Teacher in Agriculture in Vocational Higher
Secondary school system. The special rules have been framed later for
For information purpose only
the Vocational Higher Secondary Education Department, which does not
in any manner even remotely conceive of regularising or absorbing the
deputation hands or even envisaging deputation of outside hands as one
of the regular method of appointment. Further that no public exigencies
of service are there in the instant case to warrant of any absorption of
deputation hands inasmuch as at the introduction of the Vocational
Higher Secondary school system, things were in a fluid stage and
temporary appointments were resorted to then and later special rules
were framed for both in the Higher Secondary Education Department
and the Vocational Higher Secondary Education Department, wherein
regular methods of appointments have been conceived and direct
recruitment is through the Public Service Commission and by-transfer
appointment of ministerial staff is also from the Public Service
Commission in the 10% quota and other methods of appointment, if
any, are also prescribed in the special rules concerned. That the special
rules have been introduced for the Vocational Higher Secondary
Education Department long ago and thereafter, the fluidity or
temporality of the scenario that existed at the initial introduction of the
vocation higher secondary scheme is no longer there and the matters
For information purpose only
have been crystallized with the promulgation of the special rules, which
doe not conceive of absorption of deputation hands. Merely because the
general rules otherwise permit deputation, is no ground to urge that the
candidate has the right for absorption and hence, the Tribunal has
committed a serious error in holding that the ratio recidendi of the above
said decisions of the Apex Court has not been considered in its proper
perspective by the Government while issuing the impugned rejection
order as per Ext.P4, etc. Prima facie, we feel that the abovesaid
submissions made by the learned Senior Government Pleader deserve
in-depth examination.
2. Issue notice before admission to the sole respondent by
special messenger returnable within three days. The petitioner is also
permitted to serve notice on the sole respondent through
Sri.B.Raghunathan, the learned Advocate, who appeared for the party
before the Tribunal, in case such notice has not so far been served on
her. We do not intend to keep the matter pending for a long time and
the matter has to be disposed of by the next posting date or so.
3. The learned Senior Government Pleader apprehends that in
the meanwhile, the applicant may initiate contempt proceedings before
For information purpose only
the Tribunal, etc.
4. Having regard to that submission and also taking into
account the prima facie case made out on the basis of the submissions
made by the learned Senior Government Pleader, it is ordered that the
contempt proceedings in this case may not be initiated and if initiated,
will stand deferred. This order will in force for a period of two weeks.
The learned Senior Government Pleader will get instructions from
the Vocational Higher Secondary Education Department and the
Principals of the Vocational Schools, where the applicant has taught
about the performance and quality of teaching service rendered by the
applicant as Vocational teacher during the time of her deputation.
Post the case on 31.3.2021 at 10.15 am for orders/judgment.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Sd/-
K.BABU, JUDGE
ab
/true copy/ Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
KLHC010181212021 8/8
EXHIBIT P4 - CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 10.6.2019.
For information purpose only
