Kerala High Court
Subha Karyankandi vs The State Of Kerala on 24 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.2423 OF 2020(C)
PETITIONER:
SUBHA KARYANKANDI, AGED 44 YEARS
CHAKKAPOYAM HOUSE, THILANOOR P.O.
KAPPAD, CANNOOR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD
SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR
SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD
SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.JAYENDRAN KOCHOTH
SRI.A.RENJIT
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, POOJAPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DEO, THIRURANGADI MALAPPURAM 676 504.
4 THE MANAGER, M.H. S.S. MOONNIYOOR , MOONNIYOOR,
MALAPPURAM 676 311.
SRI.P.M.MANOJ-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 2423/20
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that she was appointed
as a High School Teacher in Mathematics in
'M.H.S.S.', Moonniyoor from 30.07.2016 against
a regular retirement vacancy, as is evident
from Ext.P1, which had been approved by the
competent educational Authority as per the
endorsement contained therein. She says that,
however, due to division fall, she had been
retrenched in service subsequently; and that
when a teacher by name Smt.Sneha Paul, took
maternity leave with effect from 11.09.2017
till 09.03.2018, she was appointed in her
post, through Ext.P2 order of the Manager, but
that approval to this appointment was rejected
through Ext.P4 citing the sole reason that
Smt.Sneha Paul had been maintained under 1:40
teacher-student ratio.
2. The petitioner says that subsequently,
she was again appointed in a vacancy arose on
WPC 2423/20
account of commuted leave having been taken by
a teacher by name Sri.Suresh Kumar, as is
clear from Ext.P5 order of the Manager; but
that this was also rejected through Ext.P7
saying that another teacher, by name Smt.Suja
Kurup, has been already retained in the school
under the 1:40 teacher-student ratio. She
asserts that both Exts.P4 and P7 are improper
and prays that same be set aside and the
educational Authority be directed to grant her
approval based on Exts.P2 and P5 orders.
3. The contentions of the petitioner as
argued by her learned counsel -
Sri.T.T.Muhamood, was refuted by Sri.P.M.Manoj
- learned Senior Government Pleader, by saying
that denial of the petitioner's approval
through Exts.P4 and P7 are irreproachable
because it was noticed that two teachers were
retained in the school at that time by
invoking 1:40 teacher-student ratio, so as to
WPC 2423/20
protect them. He submitted that, as is evident
from Ext.P4, the petitioner's first spell of
appointment, made through Ext.P2, has been
rejected because the teacher whom the
petitioner replaced was granted protection
under the aforementioned ratio; while as
regards the second spell through Ext.P5 order,
her approval cannot be granted because another
teacher by name Smt.Suja Kurup, was retained
in the school under the same protection. He
submitted that, therefore, the proper method
was that the Manager ought to have appointed
Smt.Suja Kurup to the vacancy caused on
account of the leave taken by Sri.Suresh Kumar
and therefore, that petitioner's approval to
the said vacancy cannot be granted.
4. When I evaluate the afore submissions
and examine the documents available on record,
it is clear that the sole reason why the
petitioner's approval for appointment made
WPC 2423/20
through Ext.P3 and P5 have been rejected is
because the vacancies to which she was
appointed were occupied by the teachers who
are protected by granting the benefit of 1:40
teacher-student ratio. However, Ext.P8, which
is the final order issued by the Government
approving Exts.P4 and P7, does not, in any
manner, show or indicate as to how the classes
ought to have been taken when the teachers in
question were on leave and this is relevant
because, even when 1:40 teacher-student ratio
was applied, obviously, it means that there
were 40 students who had to be catered to by
competent teachers. Therefore, when Smt.Sneha
Paul took leave with effect from 11.09.2017,
there ought to have an alternative arrangement
for taking classes for 40 students whom she
was catering to, but Ext.P8 is completely
silent on this aspect.
5. As regards Ext.P7 is concerned, the
WPC 2423/20
only objection raised against the petitioner
is that a teacher by name Smt.Suja Kurup, was
already retained in the school on 1:40
teacher-student ratio and that when the
vacancy of Sri.Suresh Kumar arose, she ought
to have been accommodated therein.
Axiomatically, here again the question arises
as to what is to be done to the 40 students
who have been taught by Smt.Suja Kurup. These
aspects have not been even touched upon by the
Government in Ext.P8, though it is sought to
be explained by the learned Senior Government
Pleader at the Bar that such vacancies could
have been filled up through protected teachers
deployed from other schools. However, this is
an argument made for the first time before
this Court and has not engaged the attention
of the Government at all, particularly when,
as rightly stated by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, the spells in question are so
WPC 2423/20
small that engagement of protected teachers
may not be tenable for such periods.
6. In the afore circumstances, I cannot
find favour with Ext.P8 and am certainly of
the view that same deserves to be set aside,
so that a fresh consideration of the entire
matter can be made by the Government in terms
of law, particularly as to how studies of 40
students, whose education was being catered by
the teachers protected under 1:40 teacher-
student ratio, ought to have been taken
forward at the time when the said teachers had
availed leave.
Resultantly, I allow this Writ Petition
and set aside Ext.P8; with a consequential
direction to the Government to reconsider the
Revision Petition of the petitioner, referred
to as Item No.1 in Ext.P8, after affording her
as also the Manager of the school an
opportunity of being heard - either physically
WPC 2423/20
or through video conferencing - thus
culminating in an appropriate order thereon,
as expeditiously as is possible, but not later
than three months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment.
In order to enable the afore exercise to
be completed at the earliest, the petitioner
is directed to produce a certified copy of
this judgment, along with a copy of her
Revision Petition before the competent
Authority of the Government within a period of
two weeks from the date on which she receives
the judgment from this Court.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RR JUDGE
WPC 2423/20
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON
30.07.2016.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON
11.09.2017.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.L-
133/2017-18 DATED 30.08.2017 ISSUED
BY THE HEADMASTER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.
B3/10387/17/K.DIS DATED 08.10.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.L-81/18 DATED
12.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE HEADMASTER
M.H.S.C. MOONNIOOR.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.
B3/4861/2018/K.DIS DATED 31.05.2019
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF GO (RT) NO.
5569/19/G.EDN DATED 21.12.2019.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.951951/J2/2016/G.EDN. DATED
19/11/2016.
