High Court of KeralaWP(C)/6074/2015disposed of

Princy A.John v. The State Of Kerala

2015-07-17Honourable Dr. Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2015/26TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 6074 of 2015 (H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- PRINCY A.JOHN AGED 35 YEARS W/O.REV.FR.REJI SAMUEL, THANNAMPADIKAL HOUSE KIZHAKKEBHAGAM PATHANAPURAM - 689 695 (PART TIME HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT(HINDI) ST.GEORGE ASHRAM HIGH SCHOOL, CHAYALODE) BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO VOERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) OFFICE OF THE DEPTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA

5. THE MANAGER, MMC CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS, CATHOLICATE ARAMANA, DEVALOKAM, KOTTAYAM - 686 038. R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. M.J. RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 6074 of 2015 (H) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 15.9.2003 THUS ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 EXT.P1(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER DATED 4.7.2009 EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 4.6.12 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.B4/5503/12 DATED 25.2.2013 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 12.10.2006 EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 18.5.2007 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.10.11 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO. 34604 OF 2008 EXT.P7TRUE OCPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.2.2014 PASSED BY A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WA NO. 30/2014 EXT.

P8TRUE OCPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.7.2014 IN WPC NO.22377 OF 2013 EXT.P9TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.7.14 IN WPC NO. 13689 OF 2014 EXT.P10TRUE COPY OF HTE JUDGMENT DATED 4.7.14 IN WPC NO.13167 OF 2014 EXT.P11TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.8.13 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL.

// True copy // PA to Judge das

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

=========================================== W.P.(C). No. 6074 of 2015 ===================================================== Dated this the 17th day of July, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is a Rule 51A claimant in a school under the management of the 5th respondent, was appointed as Part Time High School Assistant (Hindi) in the school with effect from 04.06.2012. When the appointment was forwarded for approval, the 4th respondent denied approval to the said appointment on the ground that the school in question was an uneconomic school and therefore, the vacancy arising in the school had to be filled by appointing protected teachers. It is aggrieved by the orders of the educational authority, that the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and also the learned Government Pleader for respondent. 3.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that in the instant case, the approval to the appointment of the petitioner to the vacancy that arose with effect from 04.06.2012 was denied only on the ground that the School in question was an uneconomic School, and therefore, that the appointment to any vacancy that

-2W.P.(C). No. 6074 of 2015 arose could only be of a protected teacher. I note in this connection, that by Exts.P6 and P7 judgments of this Court, it has been held, following the decision of this Court in Ciji.P.Jose v. State of Kerala and Others [2012 (1) KLT 867] that when it comes to an inter se claim between a Rule 51 A claimant and a protected teacher, the claim of the Rule 51 A claimant will prevail in the matter of appointment to regular vacancies that arise in an uneconomic School. In that view of the matter, I see no reason why the petitioner cannot be extended the same benefit as was extended to the petitioners in the aforementioned cases. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by directing the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner on regular scale of pay basis from 04.06.

2012 onwards and to regularise the service with effect from the said date. The respondents shall do the needful in ensuring that the petitioner is paid all consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das The word "3rd respondent" occurring in the last sentence in paragraph 3 at page 2 of the judgment dated 17/07/2015 in W.P.(C) No.6074/2015 is corrected as "4th respondent", vide order dated 21/08/2015 in I.A 12273/2015.