Vrindha, P.S. and Another vs State of Kerala and Others

C.S. Rajan, J.—The Petitioners were appointed by the third Respondent in the school managed by the Grama Panchayat. The above appointments of the Petitioners were approved as per Exts. P-1 and P-2 by the second Respondent. Exts. P-1 and P-2 show that the appointments of the Petitioners as Upper Primary School Assistants were approved from 6th November 1996 to 31st March 1997 and 8th November 1996 to 31st March 1997 respectively. The complaint of the Petitioners is that when vacancies arose subsequently, the claims of the Petitioners were overlooked by the third Respondent in filling up those vacancies. According to the Petitioners, Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A, K.E.R. is applicable in the case of appointments in Panchayat Schools.

According to the learned Counsel for the third Respondent, Rule 51A is inapplicable for such appointments. The Petitioners have relied on Rule 2 of Kerala Panchayat (Spread of Education) Rules, 1964. Rule 2 of the above rules is as follows:

Rule 2.-Panchayats may establish and maintain schools subject to the provisions of Kerala Education Act, 1958.

(1) A Panchayat may subject to the provisions of Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the rules made thereunder establish and maintain schools for providing facilities for the spread of education within the Panchayat area.

(2) For the purpose of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the rules made thereunder such schools shall be considered as Aided Schools. The Panchayat shall be educational agency and the Executive Officer of the Panchayat shall be the Manager in respect of such Schools.

(3) Every appointment to a school established and maintained by a panchayat shall be made by the Manager with the approval of the educational agency in accordance with the provisions of Kerala Education Act and the rules made thereunder.

The Petitioner has also pointed out Rule 1(3) of Chapter XIV A, K.E.R. which reads as follows:

Subject to Rule 51A, the appointment of teachers in schools managed by Panchayats shall be made from among the qualified hands advised by the Employment Exchange.

On the other hand, the third Respondent contends that the appointment of the Petitioners are to permanent vacancies and therefore, retrenchment of the Petitioners will not come under the four corners of Rule 51A. In order to analyse the above argument, it is necessary to quote Rule 51A, which is as follows:

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 schools under the same Educational Agency, provided they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies in schools under any other Educational Agency.

Rule 51A applies in the case of teachers who were relieved under Rule 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies. Such teachers shall have preference for future appointments. Rule 49 says that the qualified teachers appointed in vacancies which are not permanent which extent over the summer vacation and who continue in such vacancies till the closing date shall be retained in the vacancies during the vacation, if their continuous service as on the closing day is not less than eight months. These teachers shall be relieved on the closing day, if their continuous service as on that day is less than the aforesaid period. Rule 52 deals with the relieving of teachers on account of any reduction in the number of posts under the orders of staff fixation.

The argument of the learned Counsel for the third Respondent is that the Petitioners were appointed in permanent vacancies and therefore, Rule 49 of Chapter XIV A K.E.R. is not applicable. Rule 49 only speaks about the qualified teachers, except Headmasters, appointed in the vacancies which are not permanent which extent over the summer vacation and who continue in such vacancies till the closing date, and who did not have 8 months continuous service. Therefore, even if the appointments of the Petitioners are in permanent vacancies, the Petitioners'' services are liable to be terminated whenever they did not have a minimum of eight months service as on the closing day of the school for summer vacation. In this case, the Petitioners'' appointments were approved only upto 31st March 1997 and therefore, they did not have eight months service.

If the argument of the third Respondent is accepted, no teachers who were appointed for a short duration in permanent vacancies will not get the benefit of Rule 51A. I do not think that such an interpretation is possible in this case. As already noticed, such narrow interpretation will definitely defeat the very purpose of Rule 51A which gives the right of reappointment to teachers who were appointed temporarily for a short duration. Therefore, I am of the definite view that a combined reading of the Kerala Panchayat (Spread of Education) Rules, Rule 1(3) of Chapter XIV A, K.E.R. and Rule 51A, it cannot be said that the teachers appointed in the Panchayat Schools are not entitled to the benefit of Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A, K.E.R.

Therefore, the third Respondent is directed to fill up any vacancy in the school strictly observing Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A, K.E.R. The Petitioners'' claim for such appointment must be considered in accordance with law, while filling up any vacancy which is in existence now, or any other future vacancy. The Original Petition is disposed of as above.

*A reproduction from ILR (Kerala Series).