Kerala High Court
P.Rahul vs State Of Kerala on 16 January, 2025
1
W.P.(C) No.28085 of 2017
2025:KER:3403
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 26TH POUSHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 28085 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
P.RAHUL,
POOVATHUR HOUSE,
KAKKODI P.O., CALICUT-623611.
BY ADVS.
SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
DPI JUNCTION, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695014.
3 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
(GENERAL), DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
MALAPPURAM-676505.
5 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676101.
6 THE MANAGER
C.P.POKER HAJI MEMORIAL HSS SCHOOL,
TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676101.
2
W.P.(C) No.28085 of 2017
2025:KER:3403
BY ADVS.
SMT.V.BHARGAVI (PANANGAD)
SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI
SMT.P.A.RINUSA
SRI.E.G.GORDEN, SR.GP
SRI.M.R.ANISON
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(C) No.28085 of 2017
2025:KER:3403
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.28085 of 2017
------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that he was appointed as a Full Time
Menial (FTM) in a school managed by the 6th respondent herein
with effect from 01.06.2009 as evidenced by Ext.P1. However, the
5th respondent District Educational Officer refused approval of the
appointment of the petitioner as above. Though an appeal was
filed, the said appeal stood rejected by Ext.P4. The further revision
filed also stood rejected pursuant to Ext.P5 issued by the 3 rd
respondent herein. It is in such circumstances that the captioned
writ petition is filed by the petitioner herein.
2. Heard Smt.Sumathy Dandapani, the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner, Sri.E.G.Gorden, the learned Senior
Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5 and Sri.M.R.Anison,
the learned counsel for the 6th respondent Manager.
3. Straightaway, it may be noticed that the 6th respondent
Manager is standing with the petitioner and supporting the case
set up in this writ petition.
2025:KER:3403
4. The learned Senior Counsel, Smt.Sumathy, would
invite the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of
the writ petition, which read as under;
"11. The school was having 1500 students and more during
the time of appointment of the Petitioner. As per Chapter XXIV
(A), Rule 1, in such schools, there can be 2 Lower Division
Clerks (LDC), 2 Peons and 3 posts of Full Time Menial (FTM).
As on 30.07.2007 the following persons were accommodated
in 2 posts of peon and 3 posts of Full Time Menial;
1. Abdul Rahman (Peon)
2. Muhammed (Peon)
3. Rajan (FTM)
4. Sankaran (FTM)
5. Aboobaker (FTM)
12. It is submitted that on the retirement of Sri. Mohammed
on 31.07.2007, the Manager ought to have promoted
Sri. Rajan from the post of Full Time Menial to Peon. Further,
on the death of Sri. Rajan on 30.10.2007 the Peon post in
which he would have been serving had he were promoted on
the retirement of Mohammed as on 31.07.2007 would have
been filled by Shri. Shankaran who was the then senior most
Full Time Menial as on 31.10.2007. If Shri. Shankaran would
have been appointed as Peon, the only serving Full Time
Menial post would have been that of Aboobaker and there
would have been 2 Full Time Menial post fell vacant towards
which Mr. Shaji could have been appointed. Smt. Sujatha, the
51(B) claimant of Mr. Rajan was appointed on 11.01.2008. As
on 01.06.2009, had Shri. Shaji and Smt. Sujatha were
2025:KER:3403
accommodated in 2 Full Time Menial post, there would not
have been any vacancy as Full Time Menial (FTM). However,
on 31.03.2010 Shri. Abdul Rahman (Peon) got retired.
Therefore, on 01.04.2010 onwards Shri. Shankaran and
Shri. Aboobaker would have been served in the post of Peon
and consequentially the post of FTM would have fell vacant,
even after accommodating Shri. Shaji and Smt. Sujatha,
towards which there were no rival claimants under Section
51(B). The only rival claimants would have been Ashraf who
had relinquished his claim during 2012 by Exhibit P6. Thus,
the only possible way to cure the anomaly is to treat the
appointment of the Petitioner at least from 01.04.2010 as
valid appointment. For the purpose of reference, the above
proposition can be explained by virtue of the following tabular
narration;
Till On On On On On On
31.7.2007 01.08.2007 31.10.2007 11.01.2008 01.06.2009 01.04.2010 15.08.2012
(retirement (retirement of (Rajan (Sujatha (Petitioner (Abdul (Sujatha
of Mohammed expired on was was Rahman relinquished
Muhammed 31.07.2007) 30.10.2007) appointed) appointed retired on her post)
as Peon as FTM) 31.03.2010)
Abdul Abdul Abdul Abdul Abdul Sankaran Sankaran
Rahman Rahman Rahman Rahman Rahman (Peon) (Peon)
(Peon) (Peon) (Peon) (Peon) (Peon)
Muhammed Rajan (Peon) Sankaran Sankaran Sankaran Aboobaker Aboobaker
(Peon) (not done) (Peon) (Peon) (Peon) (Peon) (Peon)
(not done)
Rajan (FTM) Sankaran Aboobaker Aboobaker Aboobaker Shaji (FTM) Shaji (FTM)
(FTM) (FTM) (FTM) (FTM) (not (not
appointed) appointed)
Sankaran Aboobaker Shaji (FTM) Shaji (FTM) Shaji (FTM) Sujatha (FTM) Rahul
(FTM) (FTM) (not (not (not (Sujatha
appointed) appointed) appointed) relinquished
her post)
Aboobaker Shaji (FTM) Sujatha Sujatha Rahul (FTM)
(FTM) (not (FTM) (FTM)
appointed)
Rahul
(FTM)
2025:KER:3403
On the basis of the afore, it is submitted that, if the claim of the
petitioner is being considered on the basis of the statement
forming part of paragraph 12, then it goes without saying that the
petitioner's appointment ought to have been approved as claimed
by him. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that, if what is stated in
paragraph Nos.11 and 12 is correct, the said contention raised by
the petitioner is to be accepted.
5. Though this Court, on 14.10.2024, noticing the afore
submission, had directed the Government to file a
statement/affidavit, the same is not placed on record yet.
6. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the
case of the petitioner requires a revisit at the hands of the District
Educational Officer.
In such circumstances, this writ petition would stand
disposed of as under;
i. The impugned orders at Ext.P2 issued by the 5th
respondent, Ext.P4 issued by the 4th respondent
and Ext.P5 issued by the 3rd respondent would
stand set aside.
ii. The 5th respondent, or such other competent
Authority, is directed to consider the claim for
2025:KER:3403
approval of appointment raised by the petitioner
afresh, after taking into account the contention
raised by the petitioner in paragraph Nos.11 and 12
of this writ petition, after hearing the petitioner as
also the Manager, within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
anm
2025:KER:3403
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28085/2017
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
01/06/2009.
EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.B3/5032
/2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED
18/11/2009.
EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING
NO.A5/10703/2013/KD IS DATED 11/09/2013.
EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER B6/433/16T.TH BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16/08/2016.
EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E.M2/76864/
2016/DPI/KDS. DATED 23/02/2017.
EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
6TH RESPONDENT IN W.P(C)NO.26753/2012.
EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.
26753/2012 DATED 19/01/2015.
EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
25/02/2015 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
W.P(C)NO.25930 OF 2012 DTD.19/12/2012.
EXHIBIT P10- TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR
NON TEACHING STAFF OF CP POKER HAJI
MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, OZHUR,
MALAPPURAM FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2009.
