IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 26926 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. G.VINOD, S/O, GOVINDAN ACHARY DRAWING TEACHER, SVGVP HIGH SCHOOL KILIROOR NORTH (PO) KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR VS. RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATIONAL GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) KOTTAYAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE MANAGER SVGVP HIGH SCHOOL KILIROOR NORTH PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26926 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT In the manner in which I propose to dispose of the Writ Petition, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to the fifth respondent Manager as none of his rights would be affected by the disposal of the Writ Petition in the following manner. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 4. 2. The petitioner is working as Drawing Teacher in SVGVP High School, Kiliroor North, Kottayam District from 21.8.1997. It is stated that the appointment was duly approved and the petitioner was drawing salary continuously. 3. The High School is having standards VIII to X. It is stated that during the academic year 2006-2007, there were two divisions in standard VIII, three divisions in standard IX and two divisions in standard X. During the academic year 2007-2008, there was reduction in the number of pupils. However, applying the revised Teacher-Student ratio of 1:40, the petitioner and the Physical Education Teacher were allowed to continue and they WPC 26926/2010 2 were paid salary also. However, the salary of the petitioner and that of the Physical Education Teacher were withheld with effect from 15.7.2008 on the basis of the Staff Fixation Order by which the post of Drawing Teacher and the Physical Education Teacher were abolished. According to the petitioner, this was against the Government Orders in force. In the Staff Fixation Order in 2008-2009, there were only six divisions. The DEO held that the periods for Drawing and Physical Education were below four periods per week and on that basis, the salary of the petitioner was denied. The contention of the petitioner is that the view taken by the educational authority is contrary to Rule 6(4) of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules. The petitioner also relies on the decision in Satheesh Kumar vs. State of Kerala (2009(3) KLT 439). 4. The Manager filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education against the Staff Fixation Order. But, the appeal was rejected by Ext.P3 order dated 5.11.2008. The Manager appealed to the Director of Public Instruction who dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P4 order dated 30.3.2010. The revision filed by the Manager before the Government was WPC 26926/2010 3 dismissed as per Ext.P5 order dated 30.6.2009. 5. It is alleged that the petitioner came to know of Ext.P5 order only recently. He filed Ext.P6 Review Petition dated 21st July, 2010 before the Government, under Rule 12F of Chapter XXIII and Rule 93 of Chapter XIVA of Kerala Education Rules. Ext.P6 is pending disposal. 6. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner are the following : “(i) to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records leading up to Ext.P6 and quash Exts.P4 and P5. (ii) to issue a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Rule 6(4) Chapter XXIII KER and continue in service irrespective of the number of periods per week in drawing and draw his salary continuously from 15.7.2008. (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order directing the respondents 1 to 4 to allow the petitioner to continue against the sanctioned post of Drawing Teacher under Rule 6(4) Chapter XXIII, KER and to pay his salary continuously from 15.7.2008 onwards with penal interest at the rate of 12% P.A. WPC 26926/2010 4 (iv) to issue such other further reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since Ext.P6 Review Petition is pending before the Government, for the time being, it would be sufficient if the Government is directed to dispose of Ext.P6, leaving open the contentions put forward by the petitioner. 8. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the Review Petition filed before the Government under Rule 93 of Chapter XIV A of KER is not maintainable as the petitioner is not entitled to invoke Rule 93 of Chapter XIV A KER. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not heard and he was not given any notice before issuing Ext.P5 order and therefore, he is entitled to invoke Rule 93 of Chapter XIV A. It is also submitted by the counsel that at any rate Rule 12F of Chapter XXIII would be available to the petitioner. It is not necessary to decide that controversy in this Writ Petition. The Government may consider the maintainability or otherwise Ext.P6 Review Petition, after hearing both sides. WPC 26926/2010 5 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows : (i) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of Ext.P6 Review Petition dated 21.7.2010 filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the Manager and any other affected party. (ii) The petitioner shall produce certified copy of the judgment and a copy of the Writ Petition before the first respondent. (iii) The petitioner shall also send a copy of the Writ Petition and a copy of the judgment to the fifth respondent by registered post and he shall produce proof of the same before the first respondent. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl