Kerala High Court
Babu Syriac vs The State Of Kerala on 3 July, 2025
2025:KER:48494
W.P.(C).No.39899 of 2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 39899 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
BABU SYRIAC
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.P.J.KURIAN, DRAWING TEACHER,
ST.MICHAEL'S HIGH SCHOOL, KAVIL, P.O.PATTANAKKAD,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
ALAPPUZHA-688001.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688524.
5 THE CORPORATE MANAGER
ARCHDIOCESAN CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF
ERNAKULAM -ANGAMALY, RENEWAL CENTRE, KALOOR,
KOCHI-682017.
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV RASHMI K M, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:48494
W.P.(C).No.39899 of 2015
2
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.39899 of 2015
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a drawing teacher working in an aided school
under the 5th respondent management from 3.9.2012 with
approved appointment. Grievance of the petitioner is regarding
denial of approval of appointment from 4.6.1996 to 22.12.1996
and from 15.7.2003 to 2.9.2012 while he was working in
another school under the same management.
2. Petitioner was appointed from 4.6.1996 as drawing
teacher in a retirement vacancy in SMSJ High School,
Thycattussery. Stating the reason that there were only 20
periods both for Art and Crafts group and there was a protected
music teacher in the high school section of the school, the post
of drawing teacher was abolished by the Deputy Director of
Education. Statutory petitions were preferred against abolition
of the post. However, the Director of Public Instruction and
2025:KER:48494
Government rejected the petitions. Petitioner contends that post
of drawing teacher existed in the school, but was abolished by
Ext.P2 order dated 23.12.1996. Relying on Rule 12-C(3) of
Chapter XXIII of KER, the petitioner contends that the order
abolishing the post came to effect only on 23.12.1996 and
hence he is entitled to get approval for his appointment from
4.6.1996 to 22.12.1996.
3. During 2000-01, the post of drawing teacher was
allowed and the petitioner's appointment was approved from
5.6.2000. Later, during 2003-04, the post of drawing teacher
was again abolished on the ground that the periods available for
Art were less than 5 as it was reduced to 4½. This is disputed
by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, there were more
than 5 periods available for Art and post of drawing teacher was
to be sanctioned for various academic years from 2004 to 2011.
Government in the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent
contended that during the year 2003-04, in the petitioner's
school, there were only three divisions each in standards VIII
2025:KER:48494
and IX and hence only 4½ periods were available for Art group
for which no post of drawing teacher was admissible. Though as
per the relevant Government Order, one period available under
Art group and Craft for standard IX can be allotted either to the
Art group or to the Craft group, a protected needle work teacher
was also working in the school and hence ½ period available to
the Craft group in standard IX was utilized for the retention of
the said teacher who was senior in service to the petitioner.
Therefore, only 4½ periods were available for drawing and
hence no post was admissible to the school as contended by the
petitioner. Further it is pointed out that during 2004-05, 2005-
06, 2006-07 also the periods available for drawing was below 5.
It is further stated by the Government that only two divisions
each were sanctioned to standard VIII and IX to the school for
the year 2007-08. Though the pupils strength in standard IX
was 87 which warranted sanctioning of third division if teacher-
pupil ratio of 1:40 was applied, nonetheless the ratio can be
applied only for retention of a teacher with approved
2025:KER:48494
appointment and working against their regular sanctioned post
in the previous year who was rendered surplus. As the
petitioner was not working in a regular sanctioned post in the
previous year, sanctioning of third division applying 1:40 ratio
was not permissible. Moreover, one protected needle work
teacher was already working in the school. Same situation
continued in 2008-09 and 2009-10 also. It is pertinent to note
that the petitioner has not refuted the above germane facts
stated by the 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit by filing a
reply affidavit.
4. The petitioner has pointed out Ext.P9 order dated
8.6.2009 issued by the Government restoring the post of music
teacher in another school on the basis of the request made by a
teacher whose appointment was not approved. Petitioner pleads
that similar treatment ought to have been extended to the him
also. However, it is clear from Ext.P9 that in the case
considered by the Government 1½ periods from Craft could also
be taken and added to 4½ periods available for Art group in the
2025:KER:48494
high school section and thus more than 5 periods could be
ensured for Art group. However, situation in the petitioner's
school was different as explained by the Government in their
counter affidavit and only 4 ½ periods were available for Art
group. Therefore, petitioner cannot rely upon Ext.P9 to advance
his case.
5. The Government had considered the grievance of the
petitioner in the statutory revision petition and passed an order
rejecting the same after detailed consideration of the facts and
circumstances. Except with respect to the claim regarding the
period of service from 4.6.1996 to 23.12.1996, I do not find any
reason to differ with the reasons given by the Government for
refusing approval in view of the foregoing discussion. I find
merit in the contention that Ext.P2 order, abolishing the post
was issued only on 23.12.1996. When the petitioner was
appointed with effect from 4.6.1996, an approved post of
drawing teacher was available. Appointment of the petitioner
was against a retirement vacancy. In view of Rule 12-C(3) of
2025:KER:48494
Chapter XXIII of KER, abolition of the post can be deemed to
have come to force only with effect from 23.12.1996. Therefore
the period of service of the petitioner from 4.6.1996 to
22.12.1996 deserves to be approved.
6. Hence, this writ petition is partly allowed by directing
the respondents to grant approval for the appointment of the
petitioner as drawing teacher from 4.6.1996 to 22.12.1996 with
consequential benefits. Requisite steps shall be taken by the
respondents in compliance with the above direction within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
skj
2025:KER:48494
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39899/2015
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Ext.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 1996-
DT.3-9-1996.
Ext.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF EDUCATION DT.23-12-1996.
Ext.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR
OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DT.5-5-1997.
Ext.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.4546/97/G.EDN.
DT.23-12-1997 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Ext.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF EDUCATION DT.11-11-1997.
Ext.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DT.5-6-2000 AND APPROVAL THEREON.
Ext.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.525/95/G.EDN.
DT.28-10-1995 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Ext.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2003-2004
DT.15-7-2003.
Ext.P8(a): TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2004-
DT.12-7-2004.
Ext.P8(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2005-
DT.25-7-2005.
Ext.P8(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2006-2007
DT.31-7-2006.
2025:KER:48494
Ext.P8(d) : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2007-2008
DT.16-11-2007.
Ext.P8(e) : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2008-
2009 DT.7-2-2009.
Ext.P8(f) : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2009-
2010 DT.3-11-2009.
Ext.P8(g) : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2010-
2011 DT.9-9-2010.
Ext.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.2252/2009/G.EDN.
DT.8-6-2009 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Ext.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.95/2009/G.EDN
DT.5-1-2009 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Ext.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.5099/2013/G.EDN.
DT.28-11-2013 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Ext.P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.2596/2015/G.EDN.
DT.29-6-2015 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
