Kerala High Court
S.Jayarajan vs State Of Kerala And Others 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. 9580 OF 2011
PETITIONER:
S.JAYARAJAN, AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O.SADASIVAN, PET, CVKM HSS, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SRI.B.BIPIN
SRI.R.REJI
SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION)
KOLLAM-691001.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER
KOLLAM-691001.
5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
KOLLAM-691001.
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.9580 of 2011
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was appointed as a Physical
Education Teacher in the H.S section at CVKM HSS, East
Kallada, Kollam, on 16.09.1991. The appointment was
against a retirement vacancy. The appointment was not
approved for the reason that, the post should have been
filled up by promotion, by promoting the Physical
Education Teacher in the UP section. Thereafter the
Physical Education Teacher in the UP section was
promoted and the petitioner was appointed in the UP
Section on 01.06.1992. However, the said appointment was
not approved for the reason of non-approval of promotion
of the other Physical Education Teacher. The petitioner
had been continuing in service. The writ petition has
been filed seeking similar treatment as given in Ext.P11
Government Order to other Physical Education Teachers
who were similarly placed by regularising their service.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. In an earlier round of litigation WP(C)
12035/2004 this Court had in its judgment dated
27.01.2005 directed the Government to consider the claim
of the petitioner. As per Ext.P10 the claim was
rejected.
4. The petitioner points out that, as per Ext.P11
even juniors to the petitioner were approved on
compassionate consideration. Even pending the writ
petition approval was granted to 44 similarly placed
Physical Education Officers as per GO(MS)
3502/2020/G.Edn dated 29.12.2020. It is also contended
that as per GO(MS) 307/2004/G.Edn approval was granted
to yet another similarly placed 46 Physical Education
Teachers. Reference to the said Government Orders have
been made in the reply affidavit dated 07.03.2024 filed
by the petitioner. The petitioner was granted the
benefit of teachers bank on 07.09.2012. Petitioner
retired on superannuation on 31.05.2021. However, since
he is not having the minimum approved service, he is
ineligible for statutory pension. This is in spite of
the fact that he had been working since 16.09.1991, is
his grievance.
5. On a perusal of Exts.P3 and P3(a) staff fixation
orders for the period 1991-92 and 1992-93 it is seen
that one post each, of Physical Education Teacher (Full
Time) was sanctioned in the HS section and the UP
Section. It cannot be said that the sanctioned
specialist teachers are common for both the HS section
and the UP Section for the reason that, the posts
sanctioned, as mentioned therein, for the other
specialist teachers viz. drawing teacher and music
teacher in the said sections are different. Therefore it
would appear that, at the time of appointment of the
petitioner, there existed a sanctioned post, of physical
education teacher in the HS Section and also in the UP
Section. Admittedly one of the incumbents had retired
and there was a vacancy. Be that as it may, all that the
petitioner prays for is, a sympathetic consideration.
6. On the facts as noticed above including the
Government Orders referred to in the reply affidavit,
the claim of the petitioner could be directed to be
reconsidered.
Resultantly, the writ petition is ordered directing
the first respondent to consider the claim of the
petitioner for approval with effect from his date of
appointment, in the light of the facts as noticed in
this judgment. Let the orders be passed within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. The petitioner may be given an
opportunity of being heard before orders are passed. The
petitioner to place a copy of this judgment along with
the writ petition, counter affidavit, and the reply
affidavit filed by him, before the first respondent for
compliance with the judgment.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. to Judge
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9580/2011
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P13 True copy of GO(Ms) No.3502/2020/G.Edn dated
29.12.2020
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.06.1992 OF
THE DEO, KOLLAM.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE
YEAR 1991-92
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE
YEAR 1993-93.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER K.DIS 13616/93/B3
DATED 07.06.1993
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.102003 IN
O.P.NO.10213 OF 1995(N).
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3-4/91-92 DATED
16.09.1991
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE W.P.(C) NO.12035 OF 2004(G)
BY JUDGMENT DT.27.01.2005.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.3609/2005/G.EDN
DT.21.07.2005.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
12.03.2008.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.51376/
K3/2008/G.EDN.DT.20.11.2008.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.113/
2000/G.EDN.DT.06.04.2000.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.814/
04/G.EDN DT.23.02.2004.
-----
