Prajida Kumari K. vs State Of Kerala

N. Nagaresh, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.42955 of 2024 (5th respondent in W.P.(C) No.2500 of 2025) seeks to enforce her claim under Rule 51A, Chapter XIVA, KER. Petitioners 1 to 5 in W.P.(C) No.2500 of 2025 seek to direct the Educational Authorities to approve their appointment as UPSA and LPSA, which stands declined due to the Rule 51A claim made by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.42955 of 2024.

The parties are referred to in this judgment as they are described in W.P.(C) No.2500 of 2025, for convenience.

The 5th respondent was appointed as UPSA on 15.01.2004 in the School managed by the 4th respondent. By an order dated 18.09.2010, the appointment of the 5th respondent was approved by the Assistant Educational Officer from 15.01.2004 to 14.07.2005. The 5th respondent thereby fell within the purview of Rule 51A. The 5th respondent continued to work till December, 2009. The 5th respondent got employment in the Registration Department in the year 2021.

Petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 were appointed as UPSTs in the School during July-August, 2021 and the 3rd petitioner was appointed as LPST in July, 2021. However, their appointments were not approved by the Assistant Educational Officer for the reason that the 5th respondent has Rule 51A claim for appointment and petitioners 1 to 5 were appointed as UPSAs/LPSA overlooking the claim of the 5th respondent.

The Assistant Educational Officer rejected the proposals in respect of the petitioners as per Exts.P4(a) to P4(d) orders dated 03.08.2021 (in W.P.(C) No.42955 of 2024). The District Educational Officer rejected the appeal filed by the Manager as per Ext.P6 order dated 22.02.2022. The Manager thereupon filed Ext.P8 Revision Petition before the Government.

The Government as per Ext.P9 order dated 20.11.2024 held that since the 5th respondent has joined Government service on and from 09.07.2021, her 51A Claim cannot be acceded to with retrospective effect. The Government therefore ordered the Manager of the School to accommodate the 5th respondent in the next vacancy after following the procedure prescribed by the KER. The Government also directed the Assistant Educational Officer to approve the appointments granted to the petitioners, if they are otherwise eligible. Pursuant to Ext.P9 order of the Government, the Manager offered an HTV (UP) vacancy to the 5th respondent on 05.12.2024.

The counsel for the 5th respondent contended that the 1st respondent has erred in interpreting Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA, KER. When Rule 51A states that the right of Teachers under Rule 51A will continue provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in Schools under any other Educational Agency, it means a Teacher will lose claim under 51A only when he/she is appointed as Teacher under another Educational Agency.

The counsel for the 5th respondent asserted that the appointment of the 5th respondent in Sub Registrar’s Office will not stand in the way of her claim under Rule 51A, as long as there is no relinquishment on her part. Ext.P9 order of the Government, is therefore liable to be quashed, urged the counsel for the 5th respondent.

The counsel for the petitioners on the other hand argued that the Assistant Educational Officer is duty bound to approve the appointments of the petitioners in pay scale, since the vacancies had arisen before 08.11.2021. The delay and non-compliance on the part of the 3rd respondent in implementing Ext.P9 revisional order of the Government, is highly arbitrary and is liable to be interfered, since the 5th respondent has been issued notice by the Manager asking her to join in the HT vacancy which can be filled up by a statutory claimant. The 5th respondent has refused the offer. The attempt of the 5th respondent is not to get the teaching post, but for making some other bargaining. The Manager also filed a counter affidavit and resisted W.P.(C) No.42955 of 2024.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 and respective learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5.

The 5th respondent was appointed as UPST on 15.01.2004. By Ext.P2 order (in W.P.(C) No.42955 of 2024) approval was granted to the appointment of the petitioner from 15.01.2004 to 14.07.2005. The petitioner continued in service till December, 2009. While so, the petitioner got employment in the Registration Department of Government of Kerala. When vacancies of UPST and LPST arose , the Manager of the School appointed the petitioners as UPST and LPST in the months of July-August, 2021.

Approval to the appointment of the petitioners was refused by the Assistant Educational Officer and District Educational Officer, on the ground that the 5th respondent’s Rule 51A claim is pending and the 5th respondent has to be offered one post. In the Revision Petition filed by the Manager, the Government, however, took a contrary view and held that since the 5th respondent has joined Government service on 09.07.2021, the 5th respondent is not entitled to 51A claim with retrospective effect. As the 5th respondent can join as Teacher only after resigning from the Government service, the revisional authority directed the Manager to offer the next arising vacancy to the 5th respondent, after following the procedure prescribed by the KER. The said Ext.P9 revisional order is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.42955 of 2024.

Rule  51A  of  Chapter  XIVA  KER  reads  as follows:

“51A. Qualified teachers who are relieved as per Rule 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies [in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts, for which he is qualified that may arise] [if there is no claimant under Rule 43 in the lower category] in schools under the same Educational Agency [or an Educational Agency to which the school may be subsequently transferred] provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency].

[“Provided that a teacher who was relieved under rule 49 or rule 52 shall not be entitled to preference for appointment under this rule unless such teacher has a minimum continuous service of one academic year as on the date of relief:

Provided further that the first preference under this rule shall be given to protected teachers] [belonging to the same Educational Agency].”

The Rule will indicate that the claim of qualified Teachers who are relieved on account of termination of vacancies will continue till they are appointed in permanent vacancies in Schools under same agency or any other Educational Agency. In Ext.P9 revisional order, the Government held that if such a Teacher takes up any other permanent employment, the claim will cease to exist since the intention behind Rule 51A is to ensure security of employment. It is the legality of the said findings which is challenged by the 5th respondent.

A closer reading of Rule 51A would show that qualified Teachers who are relieved, are given a preference in appointments to future vacancies. Such preference is given for appointment in the same or higher or lower category of teaching posts. The preference given to appointment even in a lower category would only indicate that the claim under Rule 51A is intended to protect the employment of a qualified eligible Teacher. As per Rule 51A, the preferential claim would continue to exist till the Teacher is appointed permanently under the same Educational Agency or any other Agency.

If the Teacher accepts employment in another Educational Agency, the Rule 51A claim ends. The Government in Ext.P9 has held that the claim will end even if the Teacher takes up any other permanent employment. Going by the language, intent and purport of Rule 51A, I do not find any illegality in the conclusion made by the Government in Ext.P9. A qualified Teacher who is relieved as per Rule 49 or Rule 52 or on account of termination of vacancy, will cease to have preferential claim under Rule 51A on the Teacher accepting another permanent employment. The 5th respondent, who has accepted permanent employment in Registration Department, therefore, cannot have a claim in preference to the petitioners.

W.P.(C) No.42955 of 2024 is therefore dismissed. W.P.(C) No.2500 of 2025 is disposed of directing the Assistant Educational Officer to approve the appointments of the petitioners, if the petitioners are otherwise eligible for appointments. Orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of one month.