Jayarama Bhat vs State of Kerala and Others

K.A. Abdul Gafoor

The petitioner was appointed by the 5th respondent Manager of an aided school admittedly as a lower grade Sanskrit teacher in the U.P.School. His services were terminated on 13-10-99 when the vacancy ceased to exist. The petitioner is thus a claimant under Rule 51-A Chapter XIV-A KER. Petitioner later acquired qualification to be appointed as lower grade Hindi teacher in the U.P. School, admittedly on 9-10-2000. A vacancy of lower grade Hindi teacher arose in the school on 24-6-2000. The 6th respondent was appointed in that vacancy. Petitioner has approached this court seaking a direction to the 5th respondent to appoint the petitioner "as UPSA (Hindi) in AUP School, Kuntar" and not to approve the appointment of the 6th respondent. Petitioner further seeks a declaration that "a 51-A claimant is entitled to be appointed in similar and identical posts provided he is qualified". Petitioner cannot get any of these reliefs on several reasons. First of all the petitioner had approved service only as Lower grade language teacher (Sanskrit). Therefore, the claim of the petitioner under Rule 51-A Chapter XIV-A KER is against that post. It has been held in Gopalakrishnan Nair v. D.E.O. (1988 (1) KLT 644 D.B) that,

The preferential right conferred by rule 51-A of Chapter XIV-A thus stands restricted to the nature of the post held earlier by the person concerned.

True, the dispute considered in that case was between a retrenched clerk aspiring for a post of teacher, and the outsider appointed in the vacancy of the teacher. Even then, the import of rule 51A Chapter XIV-A KER had been considered by the Division Bench. The claim has been restricted to the nature of the post held". Admittedly by the petitioner, he held a post of lower grade Sanskrit teacher and the vacancy now exists and which is filled up by appointing the 6th respondent is that of Hindi teacher. The qualification for both the posts are different. Naturally, the nature of the post is also different. One is to impart lessons in Sanskrit and another is to impart lessons in Hindi. Even otherwise, petitioner cannot, lay claim against the post of Hindi teacher. When the petitioner acquired a right under Rule 51-A Chapter XIV-A KER on 13-10-99, on termination of the vacancy against which he was appointed, he was not qualified for the post of Hindi teacher. He acquired the necessary qualification for appointment as Hindi teacher only on 9-10-2000. It has been held by a Division Bench of this court in Anilkumar v. Beena (2000 (1) KLT 286) that,

Rule 51-A gives preference for appointment to qualified teachers who were relieved on account of termination of vacancies or under rule 49 or 52 to future vacancies in the school. The rule emphasis the words qualified teachers relieved and not a teacher who subsequently acquires qualification.

In that decision the Division Bench again referred Gopalakrishnan Nair''s case and also a subsequent decision in Sreekumari Amma v. State of Kerala (1988 (2) KLT 359). It was held in that case, that for invoking the power under Rule 51-A Chapter XIV-A KER there must be identity in respect of the nature of the post. Identity of the post of Hindi teacher and Sanskrit teacher are yet different. Accordingly, in Anilkumar''s case, the Division Bench agreed with the views in Gopalakrishnan Nair''s case and in Sreekumari Amma''s case to hold that "preferential claim of various thrown out teachers must be in tune with their qualification on the basis of which they held the post earlier. A thrown out teacher could aspire for getting appointment only in respect of these type of posts which they held earlier and their appointment approved".

This pronouncement gives a complete answer to the question paused by the petitioner. O.P. therefore, fails.