IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 1902 of 2005() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.29782/2000 Dated 18/05/2005 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ------------------------ SHINI V.U., URDU TEACHER, A.M.U.P.SCHOOL, ARIYUR, EDAKKARA P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.V.P.SEEMANTHINI (SR.) SMT.S.KARTHIKA SMT.T.B.RAMANI RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, TRICHUR. 3. ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, TRICHUR. 4. THE MANAGER, A.M.U.P.SCHOOL, EDAKKARA P.O., AVIYOOR, TRICHUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.NOBLE MATHEW FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A. NO.1902 OF 2005-A ----------------------------------------- Dated 14th January, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. She approached this Court, challenging Ext.P9 Government letter, Ext.P11 communication issued by the D.E.O to the 4th respondent Manager and also Ext.P5 staff fixation order for the year 1995-96, issued to her school. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following. The 4th respondent's school is a U.P. School with L.P. Wing also. One Mr.M.Abdulla was appointed as Part-Time Urdu Teacher in the school on 4.12.1979. His post was made a Full-Time post with effect from 15.7.1981. The appellant submits, the said post was made a Full-Time post by diverting periods from other Group-C subjects. The learned Government Pleader would point out that it can be by reason of increase of students studying Urdu also for the academic year 1981-82. Mr.Abdulla died on 27.12.1994. The appellant was appointed in that vacancy by Ext.P1 order dated 5.6.1995 as a Full- WA 1902/2005 2 Time Urdu Teacher. Approval for the said appointment was not granted by the A.E.O., by Ext.P6 order dated 11.9.1995. Aggrieved by that order, the Manager preferred Ext.P7 appeal before the D.E.O. Simultaneously, the appellant moved the Government by filing Ext.P8 representation, claiming sanction of a Full-Time post of Urdu Teacher in her school by diverting necessary periods from Group-C subjects, for which there are no teachers. Her representation was rejected by the Government by Ext.P9 dated 12.8.1996, which is a bald and cryptic order. She was also not heard before issuing Ext.P9. Later, by Ext.P11 communication dated 18.10.1999, the D.E.O informed the Manager that the appeal stated to have been filed by him against Ext.P6 was not received in his office. The aggrieved appellant, therefore, filed the O.P., challenging Exts.P6, P9 and P11 and seeking consequential reliefs. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner also challenged Ext.P5 staff fixation order to the extent it does not sanction a Full-Time post of Urdu Teacher. 3. The stand of the Government is that if a teacher works in a Part- Time post for five years, that post will be converted into a Full-Time post. The petitioner is entitled to get only that benefit and that the same has been sanctioned to her. Further, the official respondents submit, if there is a specialist or craft teacher in a U.P. School, there cannot be any diversion of WA 1902/2005 3 periods for languages, including Urdu. The learned Single Judge accepted the above contention of the official respondents and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this Writ Appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant took us through G.O.(Rt) No.5014/68/G.Edn. Dated 8.1.1968, G.O.(Ms) No.129/78/G.Edn. Dated 19.9.1978, Government Letter No.51064/J2/91/G.Edn. Dated 27.12.1991 and Government Letter No.60075/J2/92/G.Edn. Dated 4.9.1992 (Ext.P12) and submitted that the above Government orders/letters permit diversion of one period each from each subject for converting a Part-Time post of Urdu Teacher into a Full-Time post, provided there is no other teacher in the concerned Group-C subject. The view taken by the learned Single Judge that if there is a specialist teacher in any subject in the school, there cannot be any diversion from other subjects, even if there are no teachers for those subjects, is unsustainable. 5. We heard the learned Government Pleader, who supported the findings of the learned Single Judge. But, going by the facts of the case, we feel that the appellant's contentions have not been dealt with fairly by the Government. Ext.P9 is a bald and cryptic order. There are not sufficient materials before us to decide the case by ourselves. It is not clear how many periods were available for Group C subjects during the relevant years. It is WA 1902/2005 4 also not clear whether periods were available for diversion and whether there was a specialist teacher in any of the subjects under Group C. The Government being the author of the orders relied on by the appellant, can consider this aspect and express its view and if found necessary remove the ambiguity in the aforementioned general orders. In view of the above position, we quash Ext.P9 and remit Ext.P8 to the Government for reconsideration in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. To enable the Government to do that, we set aside the judgment under appeal also. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. Nm/