Anjana S vs Secetary To Government
2024 Latest Caselaw 12521 Ker

Kerala High Court

Anjana S vs Secetary To Government on 21 May, 2024

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
     TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                     WP(C) NO. 22337 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:

            ANJANA S., AGED 51 YEARS
            PRINCIPAL(IN CHARGE), A.V.H.S KURICHI, KOTTAYAM
            DISTRICT.
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
            SRI.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN

RESPONDENT/S:

       1    SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
            GENERAL EDUCATION(T) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
       2    DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION
            OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
            EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
       3    REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
            EDUCATION
            OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KOTTAYAM-
            686001.
       4    CORPORATE MANAGER
            S.N.D.S TRUST, SIVAGIRI MUTT, VARKALA-695101.
            BY ADVS.
            M.V.THAMBAN
            R.REJI
            ARUN BOSE
            THARA THAMBAN
            B.BIPIN
            SUNEESH KUMAR R.

OTHER PRESENT:
          SR GP SRI BIMAL K NATH

        THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON    09.04.2024,   THE   COURT   ON   21.05.2024   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WPC 22337/2018

                                2


                        J U D G M E N T

The petitioner while working as the Principal-

in-charge of AVHS Kurichi, Kottayam has approached

this Court seeking the following reliefs:

"a. Call for the records leading to the passing of Exhibit-P7 by the first respondent and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order. b. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ direction or order directing respondents 1 to 3 to declare that students strength during the academic year 2007-2008 is sufficient for upgrading the post of H.S.S.T (Junior) Malayalam to H.S.S.T Malayalam and modify the staff fixation order accordingly within a time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

2. By Ext.P1 order, the services of the

petitioner was regularised as H.S.S.T (Junior)

Malayalam with effect from 30.5.2007 to 14.7.2007.

According to the petitioner, the admitted strength

of students for Malayalam in standard XI in the

first year of Plus Two course is 121, for which

three batches with 18 periods of workload can be

allowed. Therefore, according to the petitioner,

one post of H.S.S.T is admissible. But only a

post of Junior H.S.S.T was sanctioned. By Ext.P2

appeal, the Corporate Manager brought to the

notice of the Director of Higher Secondary

Education the said discrepancy. By Ext.P3, a

staff fixation order was issued on 25.5.2010 by

sanctioning various posts, after taking notice of

the student strength. The petitioner contends

that the student strength in Ext.P3 staff fixation

order for the Malayalam division is noticed as

121. By Ext.P4, the appeal of the Corporate

Manager was dismissed finding that there is only

one student in excess of 120. Aggrieved by the

said order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6

revision petition before the 1st respondent, which

was also rejected by Ext.P7 order. It is

challenging Ext.P7 that the petitioner has

approached this Court.

3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter

affidavit, in which it is specifically mentioned

that it was not prudent to recommend the

upgradation of H.S.S.T (Junior) Malayalam post to

H.S.S.T merely on the strength of one student.

Though the Manager appointed the petitioner as the

Principal w.e.f 30.5.2007 the same was rejected

for the reason that it was done even before

sanctioning of the post of H.S.S.T/H.S.S.T Junior.

4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit

in which the petitioner has produced Exts.P8, P9

and P10 orders, wherein the respondents are stated

to have sanctioned a post of H.S.S.T based on the

student strength being taken as 50, instead of 60

as done in this case.

5. I have heard Sri.M.Balagovindan, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Bimal

K.Nath, learned Senior Government Pleader

appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner would contend that based on Ext.P5

Government Order, it is possible that one

additional division to the language classes over

50 students with a margin of 10 students with

teachers in all Higher Secondary Schools in the

State, wherever it is necessary, to be sanctioned.

Therefore, according to the learned counsel for

the petitioner, since student strength is

admittedly 121, if a division of 50 students each

is sanctioned, then there will be one additional

division with a margin of more than 10 students

and, therefore, the staff fixation orders, which

are now standing in the way of the approval of the

petitioner as Principal could be revisited. He

also further relies on the decision of a learned

Single Judge of this Court in Shuja Baby v. State

of Kerala [2008 (1) KLT 230]. Therefore,

according to the learned counsel for the

petitioner, Ext.P7 order is liable to be set aside

and the respondents are liable to be directed for

upgrading the post of H.S.S.T (Junior) to H.S.S.T

and modify the staff fixation order accordingly.

7. On the other hand, learned Senior

Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1

to 3 would contend that Ext.P7 order is perfectly

legal. According to the learned Senior Government

Pleader, the petitioner was appointed in the post

of Principal even before the post of Junior

H.S.S.T was sanctioned in the school and the same

was irregular and was reported to the Director.

Later, the post was upgraded with effect from

15.7.2008 to H.S.S.T Malayalam and the period from

30.5.2007 to 14.7.2007 was regularised as has now

been done under Ext.P7. Therefore, according to

the learned Senior Government Pleader, the orders

do not require any interference at the hands of

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India.

8. When the rival submissions raised across

the bar were considered by this Court, especially

with regard to the submission of the learned

counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the

principles laid down by the learned Single Judge

in Shuja Baby (supra), that the staff fixation

order is liable to be revisited based on the

principles laid down in the said decision, this

Court takes note of the fact that the said

decision has been overruled by a Larger Bench of

this Court in State of Kerala v. Seema [2015 (1)

KLT 68]. In the light of the above, this Court is

not able to accept the proposition raised by the

learned counsel for the petitioner based on the

judgment in Shuja Baby (supra) and accordingly,

the said contention is liable to be rejected.

9. Insofar as the challenge to Ext.P7 is

concerned, this Court cannot be oblivious of the

fact that the appointment of the petitioner was

made even before a post in H.S.S.T Junior

Malayalam was sanctioned. What has now been done

under Ext.P7 is regularisation of the period of

appointment of the petitioner from 30.5.2007 to

14.7.2007. It is to be noted that the staff

fixation orders were issued as early as on

25.5.2010. It does not appear from records and

the pleading produced before this Court that the

Corporate Manager, who is the 4th respondent, had

taken appropriate proceedings to question the same

at appropriate time. At any rate, at this point

of time, after a lapse of 14 years, the reason

stated in the writ petition does not impel this

Court to revisit the orders issued by the

Authorities fixing the staff strength in the

school under the 4th respondent Corporate Manager.

Admittedly, the petitioner's appointment was at

the time when there was no sanctioned post of

H.S.S.T Junior. Therefore, the petitioner cannot

claim any benefit of the presence of 121 students

in the Malayalam subject at that point of time and

seek for a writ of mandamus to the respondents 1

to 3 to issue revised staff fixation orders and

sanction a post of H.S.S.T Malayalam with effect

from 2007.

In the result, the writ petition fails and

accordingly it is dismissed. No order as to

costs.

Sd/-

EASWARAN S. JUDGE jg

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22337/2018

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 3-6-2017 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE CORPORATE MANAGER TO THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DATED 22-9-2014. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATED 25-05-2010. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DATED 21-10-2014 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GO 1341/98 G EDN. DATED 28-03-1998.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 24-09-2016.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 17-08-2017.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO,ACD.B5-19898/2001/HSE DATED 12/05/2006 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ACD.B5-19898/HSE/2001 DATED 19.02.2007.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A2/6151/RDD/HSE/EKM/ 10 DATED 25.05.2010 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF APPOINTMENT MADE BY THE MANAGER DATED 17.05.2007 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25.12.2019 (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION) EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.1.2020 (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION)

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R3(a) TRUE COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE YEARS 2007-08 TO 2009-10 EXHIBIT R3(b) TRUE COPY OF LETTER FROM DIRECTOR NO.ACD.B4/26209/HSE/2015 DATED 11.5.2017. EXHIBIT R3(c) TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.A3/7208/RDD.HSE/2014 DATED 3.6.2017. EXHIBIT R3(d) TRUE COPY OF REJECTION ORDER DATED 21.10.2014.