Kerala High Court
Rafeena P.K vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2024
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 33633 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
RAFEENA P.K.,
AGED 37 YEARS
ARBIC TEACHER (FULL TIME), NARAVOOR L.P.SCHOOL,
KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 643.
BY ADV POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KUTHUPARAMBA-670 643.
4 THE MANAGER,
NARAVOOR L.P SCHOOL, KUTHUPARAMBA,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670 643.
5 THE HEADMASTER,
NARAVOOR L.P.SCHOOL, KUTHUPARAMBA,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670 643.
BY SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No.33633 of 2019
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was appointed as an Arabic Teacher
(Full Time) in a retirement vacancy in the 4 th
respondent school from 02.06.2008 onwards. The
appointment was not approved by the Assistant
Educational Officer for the reason that the school is an
'uneconomic' one. Consequent to the Government Order
GO(P) No.199/2011/G.Edn. dated 01/10/2011 (Teachers
Bank), the appointment was approved with effect from
01.06.2011. The petitioner preferred a revision petition
before the first respondent seeking grant of approval
with effect from her date of appointment viz.
02.06.2008. As per Ext.P9, the first respondent directed
regularisation of services from 02.06.2008 till
31.05.2011 but, on daily wages. It is challenging Ext.P9
to the extent it declined regular scale of pay, that the
writ petition has been filed.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Senior Government Pleader. I have also
perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
third respondent.
3. The Government issued GO(P) No.259/2006 (General
Edn.) dated 12.10.2006 directing that, in uneconomic
schools the vacancies that occur are to be filled up
through protected teachers only. It is not in dispute
that the petitioner was appointed during the period when
the school in question was an uneconomic school.
Therefore, the teachers' vacancies could have been
filled up only through the protected teachers.
4. On 18.05.2007 Government had issued Circular
No.4545 clarifying that, if protected teachers are not
available then appointments could be made on daily wage
basis. It is accordingly that in Ext.P9 order the
Government directed that the appointment of the
petitioner from 02.06.2008 till 31.05.2011 will stand
approved on daily wage basis.
5. The contention of the petitioner is based on the
staff fixation order for the relevant period, which
shows that during the relevant period there is one
sanctioned post of Arabic Teacher (Full Time).
Therefore, one regular vacancy existed. The required
number of students in terms of Chapter XXIII Rule 2A
being available, the regular post is to continue. Hence
the appointment of the petitioner as on 02.06.2008 is
regular and proper. The appointment is liable to be
approved on regular basis, it is argued.
6. I am unable to agree with the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner. As noticed supra,
GO(P) No.259/2006 (General Edn.) dated 12.10.2006
prohibits filling up of vacancies in uneconomic school
except by protected teachers. The Circular No.4545 dated
18.05.2007 provides that in the absence of protected
teachers appointment can be made on daily wages. The
mere fact that the required strength was available in
Arabic alone does not take the school out from the
category of uneconomic school. The mere existence of
sanctioned post does not enable appointment otherwise
than in the manner prescribed and noted above. The staff
fixation orders Exts.P2 and P3 relied on by the
petitioner specifically mentions, "The school is
uneconomic". Appointments could have been made and
approved only in accordance with the G.O. and Circular
referred to supra. Therefore, the orders passed by the
authorities are in accordance with law and warrant no
interference.
Resultantly, writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. to Judge
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33633/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
2.6.2008
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED
15.7.2008 FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2008-09
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED
15.7.2009 FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-2010
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED
6.8.2010 FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2010-2011
EXHIBIT P5 RUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO 487/95/G.EDN DATED
26.9.1995 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO
58604/J2/12/G.EDN DATED 6.11.2012 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED
27.10.2018 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.11.2018 IN
WPC NO 36797/2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO 4808/19/G.EDN
DATED 13/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO 49275/J2/14/G.EDN
DATED 29.8.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
-----
