Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY,THE21T DAYOF NOVEMBER201430TH KARTHIKA, 1936 WP(C).No. 24826 of 2014 (C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ ROSNA C. LPSA, NARAKKODE, ALP SCHOOL KOZHIZKODE DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER MELADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 522. R1 & 2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VIJULAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2111-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24826 of 2014 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1.A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
DATED511/2007 IN FORM NO.27 ALONG WITH THE APPROVAL PROCEEDINS DATED13/5/2008. EXT.P2.A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT TO HEADMISTRESS DATED75/2013 ALONG WITH THE OBJECTION BY THE1T RESPONDENT EXT.P2(A).A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2. EXT.P3.A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.169/2004 DATED156/2004. EXT.P4.A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.104/2008 DATED106/2008. EXT.P5.A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE1T RESPONDENT DATED510/2013. EXT.P5(A).A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE EXT.P5. EXT.P6.A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.144/2013/G.EDN DATED22/4/2013. EXT.P7.A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION AND FORM OF OPTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P8.A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER FORWARDING THE STATEMENT OF FIXTION BY THE HEADMISTRESS DATED1/7/2013. EXT.P8(A).A TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT ON THE REVERSE SIDE. EXT.P8(B).A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P8 EXT.P8(C).A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P8(A) RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): RELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT
OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DATED22.02.2013. // TRUE COPY // P.A.TO JUDGE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.24826 OF2014- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of November,2014 JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.
2. The petitioner, who was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant with effect from 5.11.2007 in a voluntary retirement vacancy in A.L.P.S., Narakkode, had her services regularised through Ext.P1 dated 13.5.2008 from the date of her initial appointment. Later, the second respondent communicated to the Headmistress of the school through Ext.P2 certain objections concerning the approval of the petitioner's appointment. Though the petitioner submitted explanation, disregarding it, Ext.P5 audit objections came to be issued. W.P.(C)No.24826 OF2014:
2. :
3. In the light of Exts.P2 and P5 objections, the benefit of Ext.P7 pay revision was refused to be given effect to. Under those circumstances, petitioner approached this Court.
4. The objections concerning the approval of the petitioner seems to be that as per G.O.(P)169/2004/G.Edn. dated 15.6.2004, the appointment below one academic year can be approved on daily wage basis. Indeed, as the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that much water has flowed under the judicial bridges subsequently. As could be seen from the record, incorporating Ext.P3 Government Order, based on which the objections were raised, later a comprehensive Ext.P4 Government Order was issued concerning the regularisation. At any rate, when the matter was taken before the Courts, eventually, the Honourable Supreme Court determined whether Rule 51A claim can lie without the teacher completing one academic year. In that context in State of Kerala v. Sneha Cheriyan (2013 (1) KLT755(SC), the following decisions have been issued:
"6. We are, therefore, inclined to allow these appeals and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench with the following directions: W.P.(C)No.24826 OF2014:
3. : i) A teacher, who was relieved from service under Rr.49 and 53 of Chapter XIVA of the K.E.R., is entitled to get preference for appointment under R.51A only if the teacher has a minimum prescribed continuous service in an academic year as on the date of relief. ii) The Manager of an aided school can, however, appoint teachers in vacancies occurred due to death, retirement, promotion, resignation, long-term leave etc., provided they are established vacancies and the approval can be granted subject to the conditions under R.49 of Chapter XIV A of the K.E.R. iii) Approval can also be granted to appointments made to the approved vacancies arising and continuing beyond 31st March due to sanctioning of additional divisions. iv) The Manager can make appointments in school even if the duration of which is less than one academic year but on daily wages basis and if the duration of vacancy exceeds one academic year that can be filled up on scale of pay basis. v) The manager is free to appoint teachers on a regular basis from the re-opening date itself against regular established vacancies and need not wait for the appointments till completion of the staff fixation as per the K.E.R. vi) Teachers who have been appointed in the midst of the academic year and not completed the requisite minimum continuous service before vacation will not be entitled to get vacation salary." 5. Following Sneha Cheriyan (supra), this Court in Nair Service Society v. State of Kerala [2013 (4) KLT921 and also in Dhanoop.P.P. v. The Deputy Director of Education, an unreported judgment dated W.P.(C)No.24826 OF2014:
4. :
25. 3.2014, consistently held that the action of authorities in approving the service within one academic year on daily wage basis cannot be sustained and that the period of service rendered by the teacher shall be regularised.
6. In my considered view, the issue raised in the present writ petition squarely accords with the cases referred to above both on factual and legal aspects. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, this Court allows the writ petition setting aside Exts.P2 and P5 objections with further consequential direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of Ext.P7 pay revision with all consequential benefits to the petitioner, if she is otherwise entitled to, as expeditiously as possible. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE jes