Kerala High Court
Manager, Aups, Kuttanassery vs The State Of Kerala on 3 October, 2024
2024:KER:74815
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 11TH ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 33722 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
MANAGER,
AIDED UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
KUTTANASSERI PO - 679 514,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
PALAKKAD 678 001.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OTTAPALAM 679 101.
5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
CHERPALACHERI, PALAKKAD 679 503.
WP(C) No.33722 of 2015
2 2024:KER:74815
SRI.K.M.FAISAL,GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.33722 of 2015
3 2024:KER:74815
P.M. MANOJ, J
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.33722 of 2015
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2024
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is preferred by a Manager seeking
sanction of Part Time Arabic post from the year 2012 and
challenging Ext.P12 order, whereby the request for sanctioning
the post was rejected by the Government in revision.
2. It is stated that the petitioner's School is situated in a
place where there is predominance of members of the Muslim
community. Therefore, the number of students desirous of
studying Arabic is more than sufficient.
3. During the academic year 2012-2013, parents of
twelve students in 5th standard sought for classes to learn
Arabic. Accordingly, the petitioner had submitted representation
before the 5th respondent-AEO seeking to sanction one part-time
Arabic post. As per the provisions of Rule 6 of Chapter XXIII,
there should be 12 students in the initial year, to sanction one
part time post. In the year 2012, the petitioner's School is
4 2024:KER:74815
having 12 students. This is the circumstance in which the
petitioner approached the 5th respondent for sanctioning the
post of Part Time Arabic teacher in the academic year 2012-
2013.
4. It is submitted that in anticipation of sanctioning one part-
time Arabic post, the petitioner appointed Sri.Shamsudheen T.K.
as Part Time Arabic Teacher, as per appointment order dated
12.11.2012. However, that appointment was rejected by the 5 th
respondent stating that no post can be sanctioned for want of
specific order for revising the staff strength during the year
2012-2013 and in the premise that the staff fixation orders for
the academic year 2010-2011 is continuing. Even during this
uncertainty, students who came forward for learning Arabic was
increased. Accordingly, the incumbent who was appointed by
the petitioner was deployed to teach Arabic without any
monetary benefits and approval. Thereafter, in the academic
year 2013-2014, there occurred an increase in the number of
students who are willing to learn Arabic. Accordingly, there
became 23 students in the academic year 2013-2014 in the
petitioner's School.
5 2024:KER:74815
5. Later in the next academic year also, some more
students were joined. Then the total strength of the students in
the academic year 2014-2015 for the UP section came to 31.
Thereby, the petitioner's School is entitled for a Part Time Arabic
Teacher. In the meanwhile, Sri.Shamsuheen expressed his
willingness to leave the School and withdrew from the School.
Therefore, one Sri.Kutty Mohammad was appointed as Part Time
Arabic UPSA, considering the increase in the number of students
seeking to learn Arabic.
6. However, the appointment of Sri.Kutty Mohammed
was also rejected by the 5th respondent-AEO stating that there
was no sanctioned post. An appeal was preferred against the
said order dated 04.02.2014. The petitioner has also preferred
revision petition before the Government. Even though it is
specifically pointed out that a sufficient number of students
were available for sanctioning one part-time Arabic teacher
post, want of staff fixation, during the academic year 2011-
2012, the petitioner's request was not considered. Accordingly,
the revision petition was rejected as per Ext.P12 order.
Impugning Ext.P12, this writ petition is preferred stating that as
per Rule 6C of Chapter XXIII KER sufficient students strength is
6 2024:KER:74815
available in the petitioner's School. Since the language Arabic
was offered in the year 2012, as per the prescription made in
Rule 6C, 12 students were available in the academic year 2012-
2013 for the 5th standard and for the academic year 2013-2014,
12 more students were available in the 5 th standard and 11
students were opted in the 6th standard. Then in the next
academic year 2014-2015, 12 more students opted Arabic in the
5th standard and 9 students were available in the 6 th standard
and 10 students available in the 7 th standard, whereby
altogether 31 students were available to learn Arabic. This
position is evident in the staff fixation order for the academic
year 2011-2015, under Serial No.10, the effective strength of
the Arabic students as per UID/EID plus declaration comes to 31.
7. As per the appendix to the staff fixation order, no
post of Part Time Arabic was sanctioned in the petitioner's
School and it is further found that one part-time Arabic UPSA, as
additional post is required. Even thereafter, by Ext.P12 the
Government has rejected the prayer in Revision for sanctioning
of post of Part Time Arabic.
8. In response to that, a counter affidavit has been filed
by the 1st respondent, in which it is specifically contended that
7 2024:KER:74815
additional posts can be sanctioned by concerned authority not
only by considering the strength of students but also by the
relevant rules and regulations at time to time. From 2012
onwards, no orders granting the sanction of additional posts
were received. As a result, appointments made in the non
sanctioned posts cannot be approved. It is further stated that
later Government issued G.O.(P) No.29/2016/G.Edn. dated
29.01.2016, and Educational Officers can take decision based on
it. Amendment made to KER by the Government as per G.O.(P)
No.154/2014 dated 01.10.2014, that only meant for regular
vacancies not for creation of a new post. This is the
circumstance in which the petitioner's request for sanctioning
new post has been rejected.
9. I have heard Sri. U.Balagangadharan, the learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sr.K.M.Faisal, the learned
Government Pleader for the respondents.
10. Going by the averments made on both the sides it
appears that though sufficient strength of students was
available to sanction a Part Time Arabic teacher post, that was
denied to the petitioner only on the reason that staff fixation
was not conducted during the year 2011-2012 to 2014-2015.
8 2024:KER:74815
Accordingly, no post could be sanctioned. Later by G.O.(P)
No.213/2015/G.Edn. dated 06.08.2015, guidelines have been
fixed by the Government for staff fixation. The said Government
Order was partly set aside by this Court. As a result new
Government Order was introduced to stream line the
appointment of teachers in the Educational Department as per
G.O.(P) No.29/2016/G.Edn. dated 29.01.2016. This was issued in
modification of Ext.P13.
11. At this later point of time, the petitioner seeks for
reconsideration of Ext.P11 in the light of subsequent guidelines
issued as per G.O.(P) No.29/2016/G.Edn. dated 29.01.2016. It is
pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the said prayer
of the petitioner is also mentioned in the counter affidavit filed
by the 1st respondent, and a direction can be given to examine
the case in the light of G.O.(P) No.29/2016/G.Edn. dated
29.01.2016.
12. Under such circumstances, there will be a direction to
the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P11. For that purpose, I am
setting aside Ext.P12 and I further direct the 1 st respondent to
take appropriate decision on Ext.P11 after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the
9 2024:KER:74815
Educational Officers. In the event of allowing Ext.P11
consequential orders with respect to monetary benefits shall be
passed by the respective authority. The reconsideration of
Ext.P11 revision petition shall be completed within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
P.M. MANOJ
JUDGE
SSS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33722/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
23.7.2012
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF LIST APPENDED TO EXT P1
SUBMITTED ALONG WITH REQUEST SUBMITTED
BY PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
12.11.2012 ISSUED BY PETITIONER SCHOOL
TO ONE SHRI SHAMSUDHEEN T.K
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISUED BY 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 11.12.2012
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.7.2013
ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT DEO
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 7.2.2014
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DPI
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF LIST SHWOING PARTICULARS
OF STUDENTS WHO WANTED TO LEARN ARABIC
LANGUAGE IN 5TH AND 6TH STANDARDS OF
PETITIONER SCHOOL
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOOINTMENT ORDER
DATED 24.6.2013 ISUED B Y PEITTIONER
SCHOOL TO ONE MR.KUTTY MOHAMMED K.KL
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4.2.2014
ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF STAFF FIXATION PROCEEDINGS
DATED 15.7.2014 ISSUED BY 5TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETIITON
DATED 25.3.2015 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER
SCHOOL MANAGER TO 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) 4244/015/G.EDN
DATED 18.9.2015
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF GO(P) 213/2015/G.EDN DATED
6.8.2015
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF GO(P) 154/2014/G.EDN DATED
11.8.2014
