IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 15029 of 2006(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- VISWANATHA KURUP, TEACHER, U P SECTION, M S M HIGH SCHOOL, KAYAMKULAM, RESIDING AT "KAILASAM", MUTHUKULAM SOUTH.P.O, ALAPPUZHA. BY MR.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION (H), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA. 5. THE MANAGER, M S M HIGH SCHOOL, KAYAMKULAM. 6. SRI.N.SREEKUMAR, U P S A, M S M HIGH SCHOOL, KAYAMKULAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA, R6 BY ADVS. MR.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, SMT.SABINA JAYAN, MR.M.S.NISHAD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.15029/2006: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE G.O.(P).NO.240/1999 DT. 29/09/99. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE D.E.O DTD. 17/10/1997. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE D.E.O. DTD. 31/12/1997. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DY. DIRECTOR DTD. 10/02/1998. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 22/07/2005 IN O.P.9028/1998. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 13/10/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.1386/06/G. EDN. DTD. 31/03/2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 15029 of 2006-L - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order passed by the Government whereby the claim for extending the benefit of G.O.(P) No.240/99/G.Edn. dated 29.9.1999 stands rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the very same order has been quashed in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.30246/2006 at the instance of another teacher Smt. K. Geetha and this Court directed the Government to reconsider the matter and hence a similar direction may be issued in this writ petition also. 2. The petitioner's request is to grant approval of the appointment from 12.8.1996 and grant all benefits. The petitioner is working in an aided school and he was initially appointed in the said school in a leave vacancy in the year 1993. The following are the periods covering such appointments: from 13.10.93 to 16.12.93, from 2.1.95 to 31.3.95, from 29.8.95 to 24.11.95, from 2.1.96 to 7.3.96 and from 12.8.96 to 31.3.97. All those appointments were rejected on the ground that the promotion of Shri Aboobacker as Headmaster from 19.2.1994 against the leave vacancy of wpc 15029/2006 2 Smt. Sisy Koshy was not approved. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed from 2.6.1997 against a regular vacancy which arose on account of the promotion of one Smt. Susan Abraham. The said appointment was not approved by the concerned officers due to the reason that a thrown out teacher is waiting for absorption in the L.P. School run by the same management, who is the fifth respondent herein. 3. The petitioner had challenged the order rejecting approval in O.P.No.280/97 and this Court directed the District Educational Officer to reconsider the matter. The subsequent order passed, was again challenged in O.P.No.10418/97. The said order was quashed by this Court and pursuant to the same, the approval of appointment from 12.8.1996 was granted in a regular post. In Ext.P2 order of appointment, the same was limited upto 31.3.1997 which was challenged by the petitioner in O.P.No.9028/1998. He became thrown out as the 6th respondent who is senior to him, was posted in the U.P. Section. The request of the petitioner is to treat him as a protected teacher. 4. Ext.P1 is the copy of G.O.(P) No.240/99/G.Ed. dated 29.9.1999. In para 2(i) it is provided that “all aided school teachers who were in service as on 14.7.1996 and those who are appointed as aided school teachers against regular vacancies upto 14.7.97 will be eligible for protection. wpc 15029/2006 3 However, teachers appointed from 15.7.1997 onwards will not be eligible for protection.” It is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner's appointment has been approved, he will squarely fall within the above clause of Ext.P1 Govt. Order and he should have been treated as a protected teacher having uninterrupted service from 12.8.1996. By Ext.P5 judgment, the earlier orders were quashed and this Court directed the Government to reconsider the matter and Ext.P7 is the order thus passed. 5. The petitioner's case was considered along with the case of one Smt. K. Geetha who was also appointed in a permanent vacancy as UPSA, in W.P.(C) No.30246/2006. This Court, after considering the various aspects in relation to the orders granting protection, held as follows in paragraphs 6 and 7 therein: 6. A reference to the orders granting protection to the teachers show that the first Govt. Order is G.O.(P) No.104/69/G.Edn. dated 6.3.1969. The Government was faced with the difficulties experienced by teachers who are retrenched with long service from aided schools due to reasons beyond their control like fall in students strength, change of courses of study or syllabus or teacher pupil ratio, withdrawal of recognition, closure of uneconomic schools and reasons which are beyond the control of the staff and the management. Accordingly, orders were issued for protection of these teachers in the next vacancy arising in any of the aided schools under wpc 15029/2006 4 the management by whom the teacher was appointed. The system continued from time to time and various Government Orders have been issued in the matter. In the subsequent Government Order, viz. G.O.(P) No.164/69/G.Edn. dated 17.4.1969 it was specified that protection will be given to the category of teachers who have a service of two academic years and who have drawn vacation salary consecutively for two years. In G.O.(MS) No.231/84/G.Edn. dated 27.10.1984, it was ordered that in continuation of the earlier orders, all those teachers who enjoy protection as on date or become eligible for protection till 15/7/1986, as per G.O.(Ms) No.104/69 dated 6.3.1969, will be given protection. Subsequent Government Orders followed, explaining the various conditions. Mention could be made about G.O.(Ms) No.60/96/G.Edn. dated 15.2.1996 which stipulated that protection will be given to those aided school teachers who are retrenched due to division fall after completing seven years of service on or before 15.7.1995. 7. Further clarifications were issued as per G.O.(Ms) No.412/97/G.Edn. dated 16.10.1997, stating that protection will be given to those regular aided school teachers who are retrenched due to division fall after completing seven years of service on or before 15.7.1995. Those aided school teachers who had put in a service of not less than eight months service in a division vacancy in seven academic years on or before 15.7.1995 and had drawn vacation salary for seven years will also be eligible for protection. Further orders continued to be issued. As per G.O.(P) No.175/99/G.Edn. dated 26.7.1999, the Government modified the various similar conditions wpc 15029/2006 5 stipulated in the Government Orders issued from 15.2.1996. After referring to the Government Orders granting protection to teachers who are retrenched due to division fall after seven years of service on or before 15.7.1995, it is stipulated in para 2 that all aided school teachers who were in service as on 14.7.1996 will be given protection by retaining them in the respective schools subject to certain conditions. A clarification was issued as per G.O.(P) No.240/99/G.Edn. dated 29.9.1999 (produced as Ext.P3 herein). Later, G.O.(P) No.112/2001/G.Edn. dated 26.3.2001 was issued stating that all aided school regular teachers appointed prior to 14.7.1996 who did not complete seven years of service on or before 15.7.1995 and who were not in service as on 14.7.1996 will be given protection.” Accordingly, the Government was directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the various Govt. Orders relied upon by the petitioner therein. 6. Since Ext.P7 herein has already been quashed in W.P.(C) N.30246/2006 and as the matter has been remitted back to the Government, I am of the view that the petitioner also can be granted the very same relief. 7. Therefore, Ext.P7 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Government to examine the claim raised by the petitioner, based on the Govt. Orders relied upon by him. Appropriate orders will be passed after hearing the petitioner, the 5th respondent Manager and the 6th respondent, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this wpc 15029/2006 6 judgment. It is submitted at the Bar that pursuant to the directions issued in W.P.(C) No.30246/2006, the matter has been posted for hearing by the Government, but no final orders have been passed in relation to the claim raised by Smt. K. Geetha. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/