IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 OP.No. 11253 of 2003(M) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SHRI. K. MURALEEDHARAN, LECTURER IN ENGLISH, S.M.S.N. VHS SCHOOL, VAIKOM. BY ADV. MR.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.19253/2003 IN OP. NO.11253/2003 DISMISSED 19/02/2010 SD/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 7.2.1995 . P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER APPROVING THE RE- APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 2.7.95. P3:- COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) 460/95/G.EDN. DTD. 26.9.1995.. P4:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD. 9.10.95. P5:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 16.8.96. P6:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DTD. 6.4.01. P7:- COPY OF THE CMP. NO.40227/01 IN OP. 19787/1995. P8:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 24.1.02 IN OP. 19787/95. P9:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 10.9.02 IN CCC. 641/02. P10:- COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.3049/02 DTD. 9.9.02. P11:- COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.1252/97/G.EDN DT. 7.4.97. P12:- COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.4318/2000 G.EDN. DTD. 24.10.2000. P13:- COPY OF THE ORDR G.O. (MS) 404/2000/G.EDN. DTD. 6.12.2000. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P. No.11253 OF 2003 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 19th day of February 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in English in Sathyagraha Memorial Sree Narayana Vocational Higher secondary School (SMSNVHSS), Vaikom, which is an aided school, by Ext.P1 order dated 07.2.1995. Since the duration of the appointment prior to the closing of the academic year was less than eight months, the petitioner's service was terminated on closure of the school for summer vacation and the petitioner was reappointed in June 1995, as per Ext.P2 proceedings dated 20.7.1995. The petitioner was appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs.1,000/- per month. Similarly situated non-vocational teachers appointed on consolidated salary of Rs.1,000/- per month, filed representations before the Government for payment of salary in the scale of pay applicable and vide Ext.P3 G.O. O.P. No.11253 OF 2003 -2- (MS)460/95/GEdn dated 26.9.1995, directed payment of salary to teachers in Vocational Higher Secondary Schools in a scale of pay. As per the same, non-vocational teachers having workload of 12 to 20 hours + marginal excess were directed to be treated as full time teachers and scale of pay of Rs.2000-3200/- was sanctioned to them. The particular school in which the petitioner was appointed had only 24 hours per week for English, which was the subject of the petitioner. There was already only one Lecturer in English working. Therefore, there was no scope for an additional Lecturer in English. Therefore, the petitioner's appointment as an additional English Lecturer was not approved. By Ext.P4, the Government directed that for such workload, salary should be given to only one Lecturer. This was challenged by the petitioner in O.P.No.19787 of 1995 before this Court, which was considered along with a batch of similar writ petitions. While those writ petitions were pending, the Government sanctioned a 5th course in the O.P. No.11253 OF 2003 -3- petitioner's school, as a result of which, the workload of English was increased to 36 hours in a week. Therefore, the school was entitled another post of full time Lecturer in English. Therefore, the petitioner filed C.M.P.No.40227 of 2001 in the said original petition seeking that relief. He also produced Ext.P6 representation filed by him to the second respondent in that regard. Ultimately, the original petition was heard and disposed of by judgment dated 24.1.2002. Regarding the claim for full time scale, this Court held that the matter required a fresh look. Accordingly, the Government was directed to consider the representations of the 2nd non-vocational Lecturers in English for a scale of pay. However, since from December 2000 onwards, the petitioner's school was entitled to an additional post of English Lecturer, on sanctioning of the 5th course, this Court directed as follows in the petitioner's original petition: “The 3rd petitioner in O.P.No.19787 of 1995 stands on a slightly different footing. In view of the additional working hours available because of the introduction of O.P. No.11253 OF 2003 -4- courses, it may be possible for him to be recognised as a full timer and Ext.P6 representation has been submitted by him. In this case, whether or not he is entitled to re- classification with effect from the appropriate date, has to be examined by the Director. This may be separately done. Orders are as directed are to be passed, latest within a period of 3 months from today, after hearing any of the petitioners”. Ext.P8 is the judgment containing the said direction. 2. However, no action was taken by the second respondent to comply with the directions in Ext.P8 judgment. C.C.C.No.641/2002 was moved by the petitioner. Pursuant to that, Ext.P10 order dated 9.9.2002 was passed rejecting the petitioner's request to sanction a full time post. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs; (a) issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading upto Ext.P10 and quash the same; (b) declare that the petitioner is entitled for full time scale as 2nd lecturer in English in the S.M.S.N.V.H.S. School on introduction of the 5th course in 2000- 2001; (c) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay full time scale to the petitioner with effect from 2000-2001 on introduction of the 5th course in O.P. No.11253 OF 2003 -5- the S.M.S.N.V.H.S School together with the arrears plus interest thereon at 12% per annum till the date of payment. and (d) to pass such other reliefs as and may be prayed from time to time. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent producing Ext.R1(a), further order passed by the Government superseding Ext.P10 order, which reads thus: “ Sri.K. Muraleedharan was appointed as the second English Teacher by the Manager, SMSN VHS School, Vaikom on a consolidated pay with effect from 1-2-95 and he is continuing as such on strength of the G.O.read as 1st and 2nd papers above. Consequent on the introduction of an additional course as 5th one and the increase in workload for the subject Government has created a Full Time post of Teacher in English vide the G.O. read as 4th paper above in addition to the one already existing. Government vide the letter read as 5th paper above directed to sanction the eligible post and scale to Sri.K. Muraleedharan based on the G.O. read as 4th paper above. In the light of the government direction the Manager forwarded a proposal for approval in the upgraded post of Teacher in English in respect of the candidate. In these circumstances the appointment of Sri. K. Muraleedharan, second English Teacher in SMSN VHS School, Vaikom stand approved with effect from O.P. No.11253 OF 2003 -6- 17.9.2001 in the scale of pay of 6675-10550 at SMSN VHS School, Vaikom. In view of the said order, the petitioner's grievance has been partially redressed. Still the petitioner has two other grievances. First is for approval for the period from December 2000 to 17.9.2001. The reason for confining the reliefs from 17.9.2001 is that, although the course was started from December 2000, the additional posts of teachers were sanctioned only by order dated 17.9.2001. I do not find any logic in that reason since if a course is started, for teaching students there must be teachers also. Therefore, when the course is sanctioned, the sanctioning of required posts of teachers should accompany the sanction of the course. Consequently, although the posts were sanctioned on 17.9.2001, it must relate back to the date of sanction of the course itself. 4. But the learned Government Pleader raises another contention that although the course was started in December 2000, till 17.9.2001 there would be additional O.P. No.11253 OF 2003 -7- workload for only the first year students which comes to only six hours and therefore only a part time post can be sanctioned till the 2nd year classes also start. I find logic in that contention, because, when a course is started for the first time there would be only first year students and there would not be any workload for second year. Consequently, the workload for the first year alone can be taken into account for the first year of the additional course. As such, there could have been only six hours for first year students. Even then for six hours, in addition to the 24 hours, a post of part time Lecturer could have been sanctioned. As such, the petitioner is entitled to part time benefits for the period from December 2000 to 17.9.2001 also. It is held so. 5. The petitioner presses for the benefit of salary in the pay scale from the date of petitioner's appointment from 20.4.1994 till December 2001 also which is his second remaining grievance. I do not think that the petitioner is entitled for the same. The petitioner has been appointed on O.P. No.11253 OF 2003 -8- certain specific terms and conditions by Ext.P1. At that time the petitioner was appointed only on a consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- per month. The scale of pay was introduced only by Ext.P3 dated 26.9.1995, which was subject to certain conditions regarding workload. Going by the workload, the petitioner did not have place after 26.9.1995. Prior to 26.9.1995, there was no specific rules regarding payment of salary. Therefore, the petitioner could not have claimed anything other than what was offered to him in the order of appointment vide Ext.P1. The same allowed only a consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- per month. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner in that regard. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of upholding the petitioner's claim for salary as a part time Lecturer for the period from December 2000 to 17.9.2001. From 18.9.2001 onwards, the petitioner would be entitled full time benefits in accordance with Ext.R1(a) order in this regard. Arrears of salary due to the petitioner, shall be O.P. No.11253 OF 2003 -9- disbursed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The original petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE nl.