Manuj A.M. vs The District Educational Officer and Others

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.—Dispute in these cases centres round Ext. P4 government order in W.P.C. No. 23703 of 2006 dated 07.01.2002. Government by the above mentioned order created a new cadre of H.S.A (English) in the Aided and Government schools by re-allocating the periods of English now allocated to the core subjects (Maths, Science and Social Studies) in a phased manner, without causing retrenchment of the existing H.S.As (core subjects). It is also ordered that the new cadre would be created by appointing/promoting qualified hands against the vacancies caused by retirement/additional division/resignation/leave observing the minimum subject ratio requirement between Maths, Science and Social Studies with a view to achieve the object of distribution of posts envisaged in the table given in the appendix to the said order. It is stated therein that in order to implement the orders temporary ban of promotion of claimants as per Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules would be imposed exempting those who have the prescribed qualification to be posted as H.S.A (English). Further it is stated that formal amendment to K.E.R and G.O.(P) No. 76/80/G.Edn dated 06.06.1980 would be issued separately. Later formal amendment was incorporated on 09.06.2003 with effect from 07.01.2002.

Petitioner in W.P.C. 23703 of 2006 was appointed as High School Assistant (English) in one of the two sanctioned posts of H.S.As (English) with effect from 13.08.2002 on the basis of the above mentioned government order dated 07.01.2002. Appointment was not approved though she has been continuously working from 13.08.2002. Later Manager sent another appointment order dated 02.08.2004 appointing the petitioner as H.S.A (English) with effect from 02.08.204 and the same was sent for approval, but was rejected by order dated 23.11.2004. Reason for rejection was that there are nine sanctioned posts of H.S.As and salary is being drawn and disbursed to 9 H.S.As including teachers deployed on protection and working elsewhere as well. Further it is also pointed out that for the academic years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 onwards there are two posts of H.S.As (English) in the school. Petitioner is the only H.S.A working in the school against the above two posts. Further, approval was rejected on the ground that the other two H.S.As, i.e., Smt P. Mani H.S.A (Natural Science) and one Smt Jayasree, H.S.A(Social Studies) are granted protection and deployed in the office of the Assistant Educational Officer, Kundara and Government High School, Vayala. Aggrieved by the denial of approval petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 09.03.205 before the Government and the same is pending consideration.

Sixth respondent Ambili Ramachandran submits that she is the rightful claimant to be appointed in place of the petitioner. She stated that she was originally appointed as U.P.S.A on 03.06.1996 and was later shifted her as H.S.A with effect from 16.09.1998 in the vacancy of Girijakumari who was promoted as Higher Secondary School teacher. But the appointment was not approved. Later sixth respondent was reverted. Since there was no post of U.P.S.A she was declared as protected teacher. Later, headmistress of the school retired on 31.05.1998 and Smt K.G.Santha, seventh respondent was appointed as headmistress on 6.8.1999, but the same was challenged by one Sambasivan. Ultimately the dispute was resolved by this Court after having found that Sambasivan was not qualified and Santha was qualified to be appointed as headmistress, by judgment dated 15.02.2002. Sixth respondent then raised a claim for appointment as H.S.A (Maths) in the promotion vacancy of Santha. Same was finally considered by the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam by order dated 30.01.2006. Same was not implemented. Later sixth respondent noticed that fifth respondent was appointed as H.S.A (English). Government considered the matter and found that the action of the Manager in rejecting the rightful claim of Ambili Ramachandran for appointment to the post of H.S.A was not justified. It was also found that the appointment of the petitioner was not in order since sixth respondent has got preferential claim for appointment as H.S.A. Government noticed that D.E.O had rejected the appointment of the petitioner since there was no sanctioned post to accommodate her. Against that she had filed appeal as well.

Government considered all the aspects of the matter and found that the action of the Manager was illegal and that the appointment of the petitioner was irregular. Aggrieved by the same she has preferred W.P.C. No. 23703 of 2006 challenging the above government order.

For the purpose of disposal of these cases we feel it unnecessary to examine the various contentions raised before us. All the same, we feel that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Government. In Ext.P8 government order dated 16.08.2006 Government have not examined the scope of the government order dated 07.01.2002. Petitioner as well as the Manager referred to Ext. P4 government order dated 07.01.2002 and submitted that it was in the newly created post that the petitioner was appointed. Sixth respondent was working as H.S.A (Maths) but was not qualified to be promoted to the post of H.S.A (English). Further the stand of the petitioner as well as the sixth respondent was that they have got better claim for the post of H.S.A. It is also stated that the District Educational Officer has reported that sixth respondent was eligible for appointment as H.S.A since her appointment was approved as H.S.A (Maths) with effect from 16.9.1998. It is pointed out that sixth respondent had worked as H.S.A from 3.8.1998 to 7.7.2003. This is evident from the staff fixation orders issued by the D.E.O. In the staff fixation order for the year 1999-2000 it is stated that the sixth respondent, U.P.S.A had continuous service from 3.6.1996 and was granted protection in terms of the government order dated 26.7.1999. Same is the noting made in the staff fixation order for the years 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and so on. Government have also not examined the real impact of the government order dated 07.01.2002 and examined the rival claims of the petitioner and sixth respondent.

We therefore set aside Ext P8 government order and direct the Government to reconsider the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner and sixth respondent in the event of which petitioner and sixth respondent can urge all their contentions before the Government. Government would consider all the aspects of the matter and pass appropriate orders on merits within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. We make it clear we are not expressing any opinion with regard to the various claims raised by the parties. Till the Government takes a decision status quo as on today will continue. Judgment of the learned single judge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Government for fresh consideration.