IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 20849 of 2008(F) 1. SHANU PHILIP, VOCATIONAL INSTRUCTOR IN Petitioner 2. RAMESH KUMAR.P.G., VOCATIONAL INSTRUCTOR 3. ALL KERALA VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE Respondent 2. THE DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN Dated :04/08/2008 O R D E R K.T.SANKARAN, J. W.P.(C) NO. 20849 OF 2008 F Dated this the 4th August, 2008 JUDGMENT
Learned Government Pleader states that he had received instructions. As agreed, the Writ Petition itself was heard and it is being disposed of.
2. The first petitioner was appointed as Vocational Instructor in Maintenance and Repairs of Domestic Appliances on 7.3.1996 whereas the second petitioner was appointed as Vocational Instructor in Accountancy and Auditing on 31.3.1997. It is stated that in the State of Kerala, the programme of vocationalisation of Higher Secondary stage of education was implemented by the Government, on the recommendations of the National Council for Education and Research Training, as per Government Order dated 1.4.1985. The Government sanctioned Vocational Higher Secondary Courses to various aided schools. The Government also started Vocational Higher Secondary Education in Government schools. Vocational Instructor is one of the teaching posts. It is stated that there are 43 different categories of Vocational Instructors.
3. As per Ext.P1 Government Order dated 13.1.1997, the Government sanctioned the scale of pay of Rs.1400-2300 for the post of W.P.(C) NO.20849 OF 2008 2
Vocational Instructors. The qualification for appointment to the post of Vocational Instructors was also prescribed. According to the petitioners, on a comparison of the duties discharged by the Vocational Instructors in the Vocational Higher Secondary Sector, it can be seen that the Vocational Instructors can be drawn parallel with the Instructors in different subjects coming under the Polytechnic Stream under the Technical Education Department. At the time when the post of Vocational Instructors was sanctioned, the scale of pay of High School Assistants in the High School Section was Rs.1350-2200, while that of Vocational Instructors was Rs.1400-2300. Later, as per Ext.P2 Government Order, the scales of pay of Vocational Instructors and High School Assistants were revised. The scale of pay of HSA was revised from 1350-2200 to Rs.4600-7125. However, the scale of pay of Vocational Instructors was revised as Rs.4600-7125. According to the petitioners, this fixation of pay was illegal and discriminatory and amounts to treating unequals as equals and it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Again as per Ext.P3 Government Order dated 25.3.2006, the scales of pay of HSA and Vocational Instructors were revised. Ext.P3 shows that the scale of pay of HSA was revised from 4600-7125 to Rs.8390-13270 while the scale of pay of Vocational Instructors was revised from Rs.4600-7125 to 7990- 12930. As it stands, the Vocational Instructors are having a lower scale of pay than HSAs.
W.P.(C) NO.20849 OF 2008 3
4. Pointing out these anomalies, the All Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary (Aided) Vocational Instructors Association submitted Ext.P4 representation before the Government. Ext.P4 representation was disposed of by Ext.P5 order dated 1.8.2007, which reads as follows:
"I am to invite your attention to the reference cited and to inform that the demands raised by the All Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary (Aided) Vocational Instructors Association State Committee cannot be acceded to."
No reasons are stated in Ext.P5 for the rejection of the request made in Ext.P4. It would appear that the third petitioner Association was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. Ext.P5 is a non-speaking order.
5. It is pointed out by the petitioners that there was a total non- application of mind by the first respondent. On receipt of Ext.P5, an application was made by the third petitioner under the Right to Information Act, demanding copies of the proceedings which culminated in Ext.P5 order. The State Public Information Officer issued Ext.P6 communication. Ext.P6 would indicate that a copy of the Special Rules was called for by the Finance Department. It was so made on 16.3.2007. The petitioners state that no Special Rules were issued by the Government in respect of the Vocational teachers in the aided sector. In fact, O.P.No.22143 of 2001 was filed voicing the grievance that no Special Rules were framed. W.P.(C) NO.20849 OF 2008 4
On the basis of the judgment in O.P.No.22143 of 2001, Government passed the order dated 23.6.2007 (Ext.P7), making the Special Rules which are applicable to Vocational Teachers in the Government Sector to the aided schools as well. It is also pointed out that the Government constituted a Pay Revision Anomaly Rectification Cell as per the Government Order dated 11.5.2006. The Rectification Cell could hear the grievances of Government employees and make appropriate representations to the Government.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the grievance voiced by the Association of Vocational Instructors was not considered at all by the Government in a proper and reasonable manner. The anomalies pointed out were not dealt with in Ext.P5 order. No attempt was made to find out how the anomaly could be rectified. There is no case for the Government that there is no anomaly and that the post of Vocational Instructors is inferior to or below the level of High School Assistants. The fixation of pay earlier would indicate that the Vocational Instructors were drawing more salary than the salary drawn by the High School Assistants.
7. The facts stated in the Writ Petition, which could not be controverted, would reveal that there is anomaly. How far this anomaly is W.P.(C) NO.20849 OF 2008 5
to be rectified or whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief are all matters for consideration by the Government. But the Government did not properly consider the same. Ext.P5 order would show that there was a total non-application of mind. Ext.P5 is liable to be quashed and I do so. The Government shall consider the anomaly referred to above and dispose of Ext.P4 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of six months. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent. It is made clear that any of the petitioners would be entitled to represent all the rest of the petitioners, at the time of hearing before the Government.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/