Kerala High Court
C.Jyothismitha vs The State Of Kerala on 4 April, 2024
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 33243 OF 2014
PETITIONER:
C.JYOTHISMITHA
AGED 28 YEARS
HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE), V.M.HIGH
SCHOL, VADAVANNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 001.
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 001.
4 THE MANAGER
V.M.HIGH SCHOOL, VADAVANNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT -
678 001.
5 THE HEADMASTER
V.M.HIGH SCHOOL, VADAVANNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT -
678 001.
6 SRI.P.ABHILASH
HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SOCIAL SUDIES), V.M.HIGH
SCHOOL, VADAVANNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 504.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR. GP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Sathish Ninan, J.
===============================
WP(C) No.33243 of 2014
===================================
Dated this the 04th day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was appointed as a High School
Assistant (Physical Science) in V.M.High School,
Vadavannur on 01.09.2000. The appointment was duly
approved by the authorities. During the year 2006-
07, there was a staff fixation. As per the same,
there was division fall from 22 that existed in the
previous year, to 19. Consequently, 3 teachers came
surplus and they were retrenched with effect from
15.07.2006. The Teachers so retrenched are
Sri.P.Abhilash, HSA (Social Studies),
Smt.N.M.Shantimol, HSA (Maths) and
Smt.C.Jyothismitha, HSA (Physical Science).
2. Granting the benefit of G.O.(P)
No.244/2006/G.Edn. Dated 16.09.2006, and thus
adopting the ratio 1:40, the senior most among the
three namely, Sri.P.Abhilash was accommodated in
the 20th post.
3. Subsequently, the said Sri.P.Abhilash was
accommodated in a leave vacancy. The next senior
most teacher namely, Smt.N.M.Shantimol was on long
leave without allowance. Therefore, at that time
the petitioner ought to have been accommodated to
the 20th post giving the benefit of the 1:40 ratio.
So also, accommodation ought to have been based on,
subject requirement and not on seniority. Therefore
on either of the grounds, the petitioner ought to
have been accommodated, it is claimed. However, the
claim of the petitioner was declined by the Deputy
Director as per Ext.P5 order and the same was
affirmed by the Government in Ext.P2 order.
Challenging the same the petitioner has approached
this Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and also the learned senior Government
Pleader. In spite of service of notice on
respondents 4 to 6 there is no appearance.
5. Government Circular No.68832/J2/09/G.Edn
dated 19.01.2010 states that, while accommodating
teachers in the 1:40 ratio, subject requirement is
to be the criteria and not seniority. The appendix
to G.O (MS) No.11/02/G/Edn dated 07.01.2002
provides that when the number of divisions is 19,
the number of teachers in Physical Science is to be
3 and when the number of divisions is 20, the
number of teachers in Physical Science is to be 4.
The above does not appear to have been followed
while passing Ext.P2 order.
According to the petitioner, even if the above
was not followed, for the subsequent year she
ought to have been accommodated since in the
meantime Sri.P.Abhilash was accommodated in a leave
vacancy, and the person next in line namely
Smt.N.M.Shantimol was on long leave without
allowance. Such claims are not seen considered in
Ext.P9. It is only appropriate that the 1 st
respondent considers the revision afresh and passes
fresh orders.
Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed.
Ext.P9 order is quashed. The 1st respondent that re-
hear the revision with due notice to
Smt.N.M.Shantimol, in addition to the petitioner
and respondents 4 to 6 and pass fresh orders.
Sd/-
Sathish Ninan, Judge
SVP
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33243/2014
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR
THE YEAR 2006-2007 DATED 14.8.2006.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 28.3.2007.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR
THE YEAR 2007-2008 DATED 3.1.2008.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER
2008-2009 DATED 28.3.2009.
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION DATED 29.7.2011.
EXT.P5(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
EXHIBIT P5.
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 10.6.2013.
EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 4.10.2010.
EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.622/11/G.EDN.
DATED 14.2.2011 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXT.P8(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
EXT.P8.
EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.2885/14/G.EDN. DATED 19.7.2014 OF THE
GOVERNMENT.
EXT.P9(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
EXT.P9.
EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.915/2010/G.EDN. DATED 1.3.2010 OF THE
GOVERNMENT
