Madhu Anand H vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 10083 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
 THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 24TH BHADRA, 1944


                   WP(C) NO. 18583 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

         MADHU ANAND H.
         AGED 54 YEARS
         S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKAR, H.S.T.(MATHS),
         PANTHEERANKAVU HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
         PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKKODE - 673 019 RESIDING AT
         ERAKKATHIL POITHALAK, THIRITHINMEL THAZHAM,
         PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKKODE - 673 019.

         BY ADVS.
         U.BALAGANGADHARAN
         S.ANJUSHA


RESPONDENTS:

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

    2    THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
         (FORMER DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS),
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

    3    THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (D.D.E.)
         CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 020.

    4    DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER (D.E.O.)
         CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKKODE - 673 020.

    5    THE MANAGER
         PANTHEERANKAVU HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
 W.P. (C) No.18583 of 2021
                                   2




              PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKKODE -673 019.

      6       SHRI.ANIL KUMAR C.K.
              H.S.T.(SOCIAL SCIENCE), PANTHEERANKAVU HIGHER
              SECONDARY SCHOOL, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE -
              673 019.

              BY ADVS.
              ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
              T.G.RAJENDRAN
              ELVIN PETER P.J.




               SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER



  THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P. (C) No.18583 of 2021
                                        3




                                                                    "CR"

                                    JUDGMENT

Sri.Vasanthan, the Headmaster of Pantheerankavu Higher Secondary

School, was to attain superannuation on 31.5.2021. He availed Leave

Preparatory to Retirement ("LPR" for the sake of brevity) on 22.02.2021. The

question for resolution is when would the occurrence of vacancy of

Headmaster in the school arise? Whether it would be the date on which Sri.

Vasanthan proceeded on LPR preparatory to retirement or whether it would

be from the date of actual retirement of the incumbent. The answer to the

said question would determine the teacher entitled to occupy the post of

Headmaster as and when the vacancy occurred.

2. The facts necessary for deciding the issue are as under.

The petitioner states that he commenced his service as High School

Teacher (Maths) on 19.06.1989 in the Pantheerankavu HSS managed by the

5th respondent. According to him, he is the seniormost teacher and is junior

only to Sri.Vasanthan, who was functioning as Headmaster of the school. The

6th respondent herein, the rival claimant, is junior to the petitioner. He relies

on Ext.P1 and P2 certificates and contends that he had acquired all the W.P. (C) No.18583 of 2021

obligatory qualifications to lay claim to the post of Headmaster on 17.3.2021.

Sri.Vasanthan, who was to retire from service on 31.5.2021 on attaining

superannuation, availed LPR from 22.2.2021. According to the petitioner, as

per the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules framed

thereunder, the post of Headmaster is to be manned by the seniormost

teacher as Teacher-in-charge till the post became available substantially on

his retirement on 31.5.2021. The manager of the school, however, ignoring

the preferential claim of the petitioner as the seniormost teacher, appointed

the 6th respondent, who is junior to the petitioner. This was done by the

manager on the premise that, as on the date on which the Headmaster

availed LPR, the petitioner herein was not qualified, whereas the 6th

respondent had the requisite qualifications. It is contended that the need for

filling up the post of Headmaster on regular basis would arise only on

31.5.2021 on which date the Headmaster retired from service and till such

time, the seniormost teacher was required to officiate in the post. Being

aggrieved by the action on the part of the Manager, the petitioner approached

the 4th respondent and raised his grievances. However, his claim was

rejected by Ext.P6 order. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is

before this Court seeking the following reliefs: W.P. (C) No.18583 of 2021

i) call for the records leading to Exhibit P6 and quash the same by issuing writ in the nature of certiorari.

ii) issue writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent to obtain proposal from the 5th respondent Manager for appointment of the petitioner as HM in 5th respondent school from 01.06.2021 and approve the appointment of the petitioner as HM from 1.6.2021 with all consequential benefits including pay and allowances.

iii) Declare that petitioner is entitled to be promoted/appointed as Headmaster in 5th respondent School with effect from 1.6.2021 with all consequential benefits.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is stated

that the vacancy for the post of Headmaster arose when Sri. Vasanthan took

LPR on 22.2.2021. The said teacher did not rejoin duty after availing LPR and

therefore, the vacancy to the post of Headmaster was continuous from the

said date. The date on which the Headmaster entered into LPR has to be

considered to be the date on which the vacancy had arisen. The petitioner,

not being qualified on the said date, he could not have aspired for

appointment to the post of Headmaster.

4. The 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that

more than 3 months LPR was availed by Sri. Vasanthan. Referring to

Ext.R6(a) promotion order, it is contended that before promoting the 6th

respondent, the Manager had sought the response of the petitioner, and it is W.P. (C) No.18583 of 2021

thereafter that the appointment order was issued. The petitioner is therefore

estopped from asserting any claim to the post. Sri. Vasanthan, after availing

LPR, did not seek cancellation of the same and it was in the said

circumstances that the 6th respondent, who was duly qualified, was promoted

to the post of Headmaster and has been working as such since 22.2.2021. As

LPR is a Special Leave granted to an employee, the employee is not entitled

to unilaterally cancel the leave and rejoin duty as per Rule 72 of Part-I of the

KSR.

5. I have heard Sri. U. Balagangadharan, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Elvin Peter, the learned counsel appearing for

the 6th respondent and the learned Government Pleader in extenso. I have

also gone through the relevant statutory provisions and the law laid down by

this Court in Ponnamma v. State of Kerala1, cited by Sri.Elvin Peter and

Viswanathan v. DPI2 and Bhaskaran v. Viswanathan3 cited by

Sri. Balagangadharan.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner was junior only to Sri. Vasanthan, who

was functioning as Headmaster of the school. Sri. Vasanthan took LPR on

[1991 (2) KLT 344]

[1993(2) KLT 381]

[2000(2) KLT 64] W.P. (C) No.18583 of 2021

22.02.2021 and the date of his superannuation was 31.5.2021. Exts.P1 and

P2 certificates produced by the petitioner reveal that it was only on 17.3.2021

that the petitioner had acquired all the requisite qualifications to aspire for the

post of Headmaster of the school.

7. Chapter IX of Part -I of the KSR deals with leave. Rule 72 reads

as follows:

72. 1. An Officer on leave may not return to duty before the expiry of the period of leave granted to him, unless he is permitted to do so by the authority which granted him leave.

2. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule 1 an officer on leave preparatory to retirement shall be precluded from withdrawing his request for permission to retire and from returning to duty, save with the consent of the authority empowered to appoint him.

8. As is discernible from Rule 72, an officer who is on LPR, though is

precluded from withdrawing his request for permission to retire, may do so

with the consent of the authority empowered to appoint him.

9. Rule 7A of Chapter XIVA as it stands now reads as follows:

"(2) Posts that may fall vacant on the closing date shall not be filled up till the reopening date except in the case of posts of non-vacation staff.

(3) Vacancies, the duration of which is less than one academic year, shall not be filled up.

W.P. (C) No.18583 of 2021

10. In Ponnamma (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court had

held that a remote possibility of an incumbent withdrawing the request for

Leave Preparatory to Retirement and rejoining duty with consent of the

authority competent to appoint cannot be considered as a circumstance to

hold that Rule 7A(3) of Chapter XIVA is attracted in such cases. Holding so,

the learned Single Judge ordered that it was open to the authorities to treat

the vacancy as commencing from the date on which the former Headmaster

availed LPR and later attained superannuation. Rule 7 has since then been

amended, and now, as it stands, says that the vacancies, the duration of

which is less than one year, shall not be filled up. However, in Viswanathan

(supra), another learned single Judge held that Ponnamma (supra) is not an

authority to the proposition that a regular vacancy would arise on the date on

which the teacher proceeds on leave prior to his retirement. It was held as

follows in paragraph 8 of the judgment.

8. I do not understand the above judgment as an authority to find that a regular vacancy would arise on the date on which the teacher proceeds on leave prior to his retirement. In any view of the matter the issue raised in the present case has to be adjudicated in the light of the provisions contained under R.63. For the reasons mentioned earlier, I find that the permanent vacancy of a Headmaster arose in the school of the 1st petitioner only on 1-7-92 and not on 1-6-92. The 2nd petitioner admitted senior to the 4th respondent, was at that time available for promotion on obtaining exemption from test qualification. Therefore the 2nd petitioner should have been W.P. (C) No.18583 of 2021

preferred for appointment to the post of Headmaster instead of the 4th respondent

11. Later, in Bhaskaran (supra), a Division Bench of this Court had

occasion to consider the law laid down in both the decisions and had held that

Ponnamma (supra) cannot be treated as an authority to support the stand

that a regular vacancy arises on the date on which the person proceeds on

leave particularly when there is no legal bar on his rejoining duty with the

consent of the concerned authority. It was observed as follows in paragraph

No. 6 of the judgment:

6. It is to be noted that the institution in question is an aided institution. R.56 of Chap.14A of the KER provides that in the matter of casual leave and all other kinds of leave, the teachers of aided schools shall be governed by the Rules for teachers of Government Schools in the Service Regulations for the time being in force. R.72(2) Part I K.S.R. inter alia provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-r.(1) an officer on leave preparatory to retirement shall be precluded from withdrawing his request for permission to retire and from returning to duty, save with the consent of the authority empowered to appoint him. The provision which is of considerable importance reads as follows:

"72(2). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-r.(1) an officer on leave preparatory to retirement shall be precluded from withdrawing his request for permission to retire and from returning to duty, save with the consent of the authority empowered to W.P. (C) No.18583 of 2021

appoint him.

Note 1: No formal cancellation of the unexpired portion of leave is necessary when an officer returns to duty before the expiry of his leave. The cancellation will be effected by the Audit Officer in the case of Gazetted Officers and by the Head of Office in the case of non gazetted officers."

Learned Single Judge in Ponnamma's case observed that there is remote possibility of a person withdrawing the request for leave preparatory to retirement and rejoining duty with consent of authority competent to appoint, and same cannot be considered as a circumstance to hold that R.7A(3) of Chap.14A is attracted in such cases. We are unable to subscribe to the view. There is no legal bar for such a request being made and when the provision provides that same can be done with the consent of the authority empowered to appoint the person, merely because there is possibility of such a person not seeking withdrawal, that cannot be take away the effect of the provision enabling the withdrawal. In the circumstance, therefore, R.7A(3) of Chap.14A which reads as follows clearly applies.

"7A(3) Vacancies, the duration of which is two months or less shall not be filled up by any appointment."

It stipulates that vacancies, the duration of which is two months or less, shall not be filled up by any appointment. In the case at hand the duration is certainly less than two months in view of the provisions contained in R.63. Apart from that, the decision in question related to a case under R.62 of Chap.14A of K.E.R. The decision in that background cannot be treated as an authority to support the stand that a regular vacancy arises on the date on which the person proceeds on leave prior to his retirement, W.P. (C) No.18583 of 2021

particularly when there is no legal bar on his rejoining duty with consent of concerned authority. ..................... (emphasis supplied)

12. In a recent judgment dated 10.1.2022 in W.A.No. 438 of 2021

rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, it was held that the nature of

vacancy which arises when a person proceeds on Leave Preparatory to

Retirement would be materially different from the substantive vacancy that

would arise consequent to the retirement of the earlier incumbent.

13. For the purpose of seniority, it is the substantive vacancy to

which a person is appointed that has to be reckoned. The substantive

vacancy would arise only on the retirement of the former Headmaster on

31.5.2021 and not on 22.2.2021, on which date the former Headmaster

availed LPR. As on 1.6.2021, the petitioner herein was the seniormost and he

was eminently qualified to the post. In that view of the matter, the

appointment of the 6th respondent as Headmaster overlooking the petitioner

cannot be sustained under law.

In view of the discussion above, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

Ext.P6 will stand quashed. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to be

promoted and appointed as Headmaster of the Pantheerankavu Higher

Secondary School with effect from 1.6.2021. Consequently, there will be a W.P. (C) No.18583 of 2021

direction to the 5th respondent to forward the proposal for appointment of

the petitioner as Headmaster of the School managed by him with effect from

1.6.2021 to the 4th respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the proposal, the 4th

respondent shall pass appropriate orders within a further period of four

weeks. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential

benefits.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

IAP W.P. (C) No.18583 of 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18583/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KPSC DATED 17/3/2021.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KPSC DATED 17/3/2021.

Exhibit P3                    A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
                              HON'BLE COURT REPORTED AS 1993 (2) KLT


Exhibit P4                    A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
                              HON'BLE COURT REPORTED AS 2000(2) KLT 64.

Exhibit P5                    A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
                              COURT DATED 12/3/2021 IN WPC 6387/21.

Exhibit P6                    A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/7/2021
                              ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P7                    A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SUBMITTED BY
                              THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
                              DURING HEARING DATED 28/6/2021.

RESPONDENTS'
EXHIBITS:

EXT.R6(a)                     TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER,
                              DATED 22.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
                              RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.