Kerala High Court
Sharin V John vs The State Of Kerala on 9 July, 2025
W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 26863 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
SHARIN V JOHN, AGED 34 YEARS,
WIFE OF JOHNSON PETER, ASSISTANT TEACHER, C.S.I.
VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THIRUVALLA - 689
101, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA - 689 101.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 101.
5 THE MANAGER
C.S.I. VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL OF DEAF,
THIRUVALLA - 689 101, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015
2
6 SMT.MARY JOHN
ASSISTANT TEACHER, C.S.I. VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL FOR DEAF, THIRUVALLA - 689 101, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT.
*ADDL R7 ANIE THOMAS
W/O ANIL P JACOB, PALATHUMKAL HOUSE, NEDUMGADAPPALLY
P.O., KOTTAYAM, 686545 (ASSISTANT TEACHER ( HIGHER TIME
SCALE), CSI VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL FOR THE
DEAF, THIRUVALLA.)
*(ADDL R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.02.2017 IN
IA 1852/17)
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SRI.S.A.ANAND
SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
SHRI.K.A.BALAN
SHRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
SMT.K.N.REMYA
SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR
SMT.N.SANTHA
SHRI.K.SANDESH RAJA
SRI.V.VARGHESE
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV SAJJAD M
ADV RASHMI K M, SR.GP
ADV.S.SUBHASH CHAND,
ADV.V.VARGHESE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No. 26863 of 2015
3
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.26863 of 2015
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
Following reliefs are sought in this writ petition:
"(i) call for the records relating to
Exhibits P-3 and P-6 and set aside the originals
of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or
other appropriate writ or order.
(ii) declare that the seniority list is to be
maintained separately for Assistant teachers on
higher time scale of pay and Assistant Teachers
for lower time scale of pay.
(iii) declare that the Petitioner is senior to
the 6th Respondent and entitled to continue in
service in preference to the 6th Respondent.
(iv) declare that the Petitioner is entitled
to be accommodate against the post of Assistant
Teachers on higher time scale of pay and the 6 th
Respondent is entitled to be accommodated
against the post of Assistant Teachers for lower
time scale of pay.
(v) pass such other order or direction
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper to grant in the circumstances of the
case."
2. Ext.P3 is a communication from the Secretary,
General Education Department, Government of Kerala dated
04.08.2014 addressed to the 5 th respondent - Manager,
directing that the instruction issued by the 4 th respondent for
appointing the 6th respondent in a regular vacancy shall be
implemented urgently. Ext.P6 is a Government Order dated
13.08.2015 issued by the Government in a review petition filed
by the petitioner herein.
3. Briefly stated, the dispute is regarding inter se
seniority of the petitioner and the 6 th respondent. The following
tables would show spells of service up to 2019 of the petitioner
and the 6th respondent:-
Sherin V John
28.07.2003 to Leave vacancy
16.10.2004 approved
01.06.2005 to Leave vacancy
20.08.2007 approved
18.10.2006 to Leave vacancy
20.08.2007 approved
21.08.2007 to Temporary
22.02.2010 promotion vacancy
01.07.2008 approved
onwards
(14.07.2010) Regular vacancy
approved
15.07.2010 to Leave vacancy
22.02.2015 approved (paid
salary till
31.08.2014)
23.02.2015 to Leave vacancy not
approved
22.08.2017
15.07.2017 to BRC
19.06.2018
20.06.2018 to Leave vacancy
21.06.2019 approved
06.06.2019 Regular vacancy
onwards approved
Mery John
19.10.2000 to Leave vacancy
02.03.2001 and in Manakkala
17.07.2001 to school
24.10.2001
03.09.2002 to Leave vacancy
30.03.2003 approved.
15.07.2003 to Leave vacancy
14.10.2004 approved.
15.10.2004 to Leave vacancy
22.02.2005 approved.
23.02.2005 to Leave vacancy
20.08.2007 approved.
21.08.2007 to Leave vacancy
14.06.2011 approved.
15.06.2011 to Leave vacancy
21.06.2016 approved, paid
up to
14.07.2012
22.06.2016 to Leave vacancy
21.06.2019 not approved
15/07/17 BRC
04.10.17 Leave vacancy
19.06.2018 approved.
20.06.2018 to Regular
31.03.2019(retire vacancy
d) approved.
4. CSI Vocational Higher Secondary School for Deaf is
governed by Ext.P5 Government Order dated 22.11.1979. The
said Government Order envisages two distinct categories of
Assistant Teachers in Special Schools, one with higher time
scale and other with lower time scale. Qualifications prescribed
for the two categories are different. Petitioner was appointed in
the category having higher pay scale and the 6 th respondent
was in the category having the lesser pay scale. Petitioner
claimed that those who are appointed in the higher pay scale
shall be considered as seniors than those who were appointed
in the lower scale of pay. This claim was considered by the
Government in Ext.P6. Government observed that in none of
the orders pertaining to Special Schools, any decision was
taken for following separate seniority list for the Assistant
Teachers according to the pay scale. Government further
observed that only a single seniority list is maintained for the
Special Schools. Government noted that the 6 th respondent
entered service in the year 2000 and the petitioner joined
service much later. Plea of the petitioner for treating her as
senior to the 6th respondent was found untenable by the
Government. Hence the petitioner approached this Court in
the above writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.
5. Sri.Sajjad, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed against a
regular vacancy much before the 6 th respondent was so
appointed. He submitted that the petitioner was appointed as
an Assistant Teacher in the category having a higher scale of
pay and, in view of the provisions of Rules 34 and 37 of Chapter
XIV(A) of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 ('KER' for brevity), the
seniority of Assistant Teachers in the category having a higher
scale of pay ought to have been separately fixed. Those
belonging to the category having a lower scale of pay were
liable to be placed below them. The learned counsel asserted
that the provisions of KER would apply to Special Schools also
and pointed out that Rule 1 of Chapter II of KER specifically
mentioned schools for special education . He also made
reference to the observation by Government in Ext.P9 order
dated 06.10.2010 in a revision petition filed by an Assistant
Teacher of the same school. Government observed in Ext.P9
that as the qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher on
higher time scale and Assistant Teacher on lower time scale are
different, separate seniority lists are to be maintained for each
category. He hence submitted that the impugned orders were
improper and illegal and thus liable to be set aside by this
Court. Learned counsel further submitted that the declarations
sought in the writ petition are liable to be granted.
6. Smt.Reshmi K.M, learned Senior Government
Pleader submitted that the decision taken by the Government in
Ext.P6 was made after analysing all relevant aspects. She
submitted that there is no stipulation in any Government orders
governing special schools that separate seniority list shall be
maintained for the Assistant Teachers depending upon their
scale of pay. She contended that the 6 th respondent was
appointed much earlier compared to the petitioner and
undoubtedly she was senior to the petitioner in service. She
therefore, justified the decisions taken by the Government
reflected in Exts.P3 and P6.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the 6 th respondent
- Sri.V.Varghese contended that the claims of the petitioner
were totally untenable. He submitted that the 6 th respondent
was appointed in a leave vacancy in another school under the
same management initially on 19.10.2000 whereas, the initial
appointment of the petitioner in a leave vacancy in the school at
Thiruvalla was only on 28.07.2003. He submitted that the
provisions of KER are not applicable to special schools and this
aspect was properly noticed by the Government in Ext.P2. In
the said order, Government specifically stated that the KER has
not been made applicable in the case of special schools in the
State. Ext.P5 Government Order dated 22.11.1979 and other
executive orders issued by the Government from time to time
govern matters relating to appointment of staff etc., in special
schools. He asserted that two categories of teachers are
appointed in the special schools taking into account the
peculiar requirements of such schools. He contended that the
observation in Ext.P9 regarding maintaining special seniority
list for each category was only a mistake made by the officer
who passed the order. The learned counsel submitted that the
petitioner who was found to be junior to the 6 th respondent
however, was appointed against a regular vacancy with effect
from 01.07.2008 whereas, the 6th respondent was
accommodated in a regular vacancy only with effect from
20.06.2018. He submitted that the 6 th respondent, being senior
was entitled to be appointed in the regular vacancy which
became available on 01.07.2008 in preference to the petitioner
and the said illegality is to be rectified. He prayed for dismissal
of the writ petition, as according to him, none of the reliefs
sought are liable to be granted.
8. Sri.S.Subash Chand, appearing for the additional 7 th
respondent submitted that the provisions of KER are not
applicable to the special schools. He referred to the judgment
of a learned Single Judge in Soni Gabriel v. State of Kerala
[2025 KLT OnLine 1920]. He pointed out that the learned
Single Judge followed the judgment of this Court in Sherin M.
Chandy v. State of Kerala [1993 KHC 253] and held
unequivocally that the provisions of chapter XIV(A) of KER are
not applicable in the case of teachers appointed in the special
schools for handicapped in the State. The learned counsel also
made reference to some other judgments dealing with
categorization of teachers. The learned counsel however,
submitted that his client is not interested in the dispute
between the petitioner and the 6 th respondent as the same
would not affect her career prospects in the present situation.
9. In view of the categorical pronouncement of this
Court regarding non-applicability of the provisions of KER to
special schools in Soni Gabriel (supra), the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner regarding fixation of seniority
categorizing teachers in to two different categories based on
the scale of pay cannot be accepted. The observation in Ext.P9
Government Order that separate seniority list shall be
maintained for Assistant Teachers on higher time scale and
lower time scale does not appear to be made with reference to
any Government Orders governing the appointment of teachers
and other service conditions pertaining to special schools.
Ext.P9 was an order issued in a revision petition filed by an
individual teacher. In Ext.P6, Government has clearly stated
that there are no stipulations making it necessary to maintain
different seniority list for different categories of Assistant
Teachers of Special Schools. Further, the government stated
that only a single seniority list is being maintained in the
special schools. Ext.P5 Government Order dated 22.11.1979
does not provide for maintaining separate seniority list.
Therefore, the demand of the petitioner for maintaining
different seniority list for Assistant Teachers depending upon
their pay scales is not legally well-founded. No material having
the force of law supports the said claim. Therefore, no direction
can be issued to the respondents to maintain separate seniority
lists.
10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the 6 th
respondent that his client retired from service on attaining the
age of superannuation during the pendency of this writ petition.
Therefore, the dispute has virtually become academic in nature.
However, the contention that the petitioner was appointed
against a regular vacancy in 2008, while the 6th respondent,
who was senior, was then working in a leave vacancy, was also
pointed out as an illegality. Though there is substance in the
said contention, fact remains that the said appointment was not
challenged by the 6th respondent. Therefore, at this distant
point of time, no observation needs to be made regarding the
said appointment especially in a writ petition filed by the
beneficiary of the said appointment.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 6 th
respondent pointed out that their clients are entitled to get
salary up to 14.07.2016 taking into account the availability of
vacancies in terms of staff fixation order of 2010 - 2011. The
petitioner continued in the school from 15.07.2010 to
14.07.2017 against a vacancy available as per the staff fixation
order for the academic year 2010-11.Nonetheless, she was paid
salary up to 31.08.2014 only. Similarly, the 6 th respondent
continued from 15.06.2011 to 14.07.2017 against vacancies
available in terms of the staff fixation order pertaining to 2010-
11. She was paid salary only up to 14.07.2012. The learned
counsel for the petitioner pointed out Ext.P10 Government
Order dated 04.02.2025 issued in the case of a similarly
situated teacher and submitted that the petitioner was also
entitled for salary up to 14.07.2016. The learned counsel for
the 6th respondent also made similar claim. The said issue of
non-payment of salary is not strictly within the scope of this
writ petition. However, as the pendency of this writ petition
raising a dispute with respect to inter se seniority might have
affected the petitioner as well as the 6 th respondent by causing
delay in processing their claims for salary, the competent
authority among the respondents shall consider the issue of
non-payment of salary to the petitioner as well as the 6 th
respondent and take appropriate decision in the matter
expeditiously.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
rp
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26863/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER
AND APPROVAL THEREOF DATED 01.07.2008.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.2221/2012/G.EDN. DATED
15.05.2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED
04.08.2014.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALICUT DATED 21.04.2007.
EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.198/79/G.EDN. DATED
22.11.1979 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.3423/2015/G.EDN. DATED
13.08.2015 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION DATED 13.06.2011.
EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST.
EXHIBIT P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.4298/10/G.EDN. DATED
6.10.2010 OG THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P-10 - TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF THE MANAGER
DATED 23.02.2015.
EXHIBIT P10- TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO.991/2025/G.EDN DATED
04.02.2025.
EXHIBIT P11- TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER
DATED 23.02.2015.
EXHIBIT P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT DATED 23.02.2015.
EXHIBIT P13- TRUE COPY OF TEH GO(P) NO.154/2014/G.EDN DATED
14.08.2015 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXTHIBIT P14 - TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE YEAR
2010-11 DATED 24.08.2010.
EXHIBIT P15-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL
OFFICER DATED 28.12.2016.
EXHIBIT P16-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED
25.4.2016.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R6A - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/976/14 DATED 09.07.2014
OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE APPENDED SENIORITY LIST.
EXHIBIT R6 B TRUE COPY OF WPC NO 16218/2018 WITH ONLY EXTS
P8 AND P12 THEREIN
EXHIBIT R6 C TRUE COPY WPC NO 4020/2020 WITHOUT ITS
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R6 D TRUE COPY OF THE GO NO 2300/2019/G.EDN DATED
13.06.2019
EXHIBIT R6 E TRUE COPY OF GO NO 2784/2020/ G.EDN DATED
13.10.2020
