IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 6925 of 2008(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JISHA P., W/O.SOMAN, RESIDING AT PRASANTHAM, PUTHUKKADU P.O., RAMANATTUKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTION OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. 5. ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PARAPPANANGADI. 6. MANAGER, A.M.L.P. SCHOOL, CHERUVANNUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T.T. MUHAMOOD. R6 BY ADV. SRI.LIGEY ANTONY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 6925 of 2008(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 13/01/1999. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/01/2000 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/03/2003 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.175/99/G.EDN. DATED 26/07/1999. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 22168/2003 DATED 02/09/2003 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/03/2005 PASSED BY THE ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PARAPPANANGADI. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/06/2005 OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DATED 19/06/2006. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 01/09/2006 BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 18091/2000 DATED 12/11/2001. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 07/10/2003. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 10/11/1994. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/12/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12/03/2007 IN WP(C) NO. 7954/2007 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.4055/07/G.EDN DATED 05/09/2007. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 22/12/2008 BEFORE THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 13/04/2010. EXT.P18: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 12/06/2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE MANAGER. EXT.P19: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 03/06/2009 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE MANAGER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.6925/2008-Y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who was approved as a leave substitute is aggrieved by non grant of protection under various Government Orders. 2. Initially, the petitioner was appointed in a leave vacancy from 13/01/1994 to 12/01/1999 and the appointment was approved as per Ext.P1 order. For the second spell, from 13/01/1999 to 12/01/2004, the appointment was also approved as per Ext.P2 order. During the academic year 2002-03, when the staff fixation order was passed, due to division fall, the petitioner was retrenched. In the appeal, a second division was sanctioned in Std.II and under 1:40 ratio, the petitioner was ordered to be retained. 3. There was a threat of retrenchment during 2003-04 and claiming the benefit of G.O.(P). No.175/99/G.Edn., dated 26/07/1999, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.22168/2003. 4. During this time, the petitioner was retrenched from service and even though an appeal was W.P.(C). No.6925/2008 -:2:- filed, that was rejected. By Ext.P5 Judgment this Court directed the contentions of the petitioner to be considered. Thereafter, an order was issued to accommodate the petitioner by applying 1:40 ratio, as per Government Order dated 10/11/2004. Again during the next academic year, 2004-05, the petitioner was ordered to be retrenched by Ext.P6 order which was appealed by the Manager and by Ext.P7 order the same was rejected. Ext.P8 order is the one passed by the Director of Public Instruction in further appeal and the revision petition filed before the Government also was rejected. 5. The petitioner relies upon Ext.P10, an order passed by the Government wherein another teacher, a leave substitute, was granted protection by the Government. 6. The petitioner also relies upon various Government Orders in the matter. The contention raised evidently is that the petitioner was in aided school service as on 14/07/1996 and, therefore, she is entitled for protection. W.P.(C). No.6925/2008 -:3:- 7. Apparently, the stand taken by the Government and the Director of Public Instruction is that various Government Orders do not allow protection to a person like the petitioner who is a leave substitute. As far as the grant of protection is concerned, the same is governed by various Government Orders and it is a benefit conferred by the Government under the Scheme to give re-employment to the protected teachers. Therefore, unless the person concerned comes within the various para meters of the Government Order, the benefit cannot be granted. In fact, the stand of the Government is further clear from Ext.P17 reply given to the petitioner wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of protection as the petitioner is a leave substitute. Hence I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner's right under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules ought to have been recognised. But, herein, there is no evidence to show that later a regular vacancy arose in W.P.(C). No.6925/2008 -:4:- the school for enabling the petitioner to enforce the said right. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in 2003-04 the petitioner ought to have been considered, evidently, the retrenchment was consequent on division fall. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that there was deliberate denial of the right of the petitioner. Therefore, I am not finally pronouncing on that matter. The petitioner can raise her claim at any relevant time under the provisions of Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A K.E.R. The said issue is left open for consideration. 9. Therefore, as far as the impugned orders are concerned, it cannot be said that the Government went wrong in not granting protection to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms