IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 WA.No. 936 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.29763/2009 Dated 18/03/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------- P.ANANDAN PILLAI S/O PACHU PILLAI, AGED 60 YEARS MANAGER, S.V.P.M. HIGH SCHOOL VADAKKUMTHALA, KARUNAGAPPALLY BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM - 14 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOLLAM 5. SMT.G.P.RUGMINIKUTTY AMMA JAYALAKSHMI BHAVANAM, KULANGARA BHAGOM CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/11/2010 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1491/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.Nos.936 & 1491 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Smt.Rugminikutty Amma, respondent No.1 in these two appeals, ended up with a long drawn litigation in her hands though she had never bargained for it. 2. She sought appointment as a Sewing teacher in the school under the management of the appellant. Her initial entry in service was in a leave vacancy for a short period of two months in the year 1967 and thus she became a Rule 51 A claimant under Chapter XIV A of Kerala Education Rules. But in spite of several orders passed by the statutory authorities and this court also, she could never work as a sewing teacher in the school in question. According to her, the Management found one ploy or another to deny appointment. 3. The issue got finally concluded by the impugned judgment by which the learned Single Judge held that respondent No.1 would be entitled to be treated as though she had been in service from June 1 W.A.No.936/2010 2 1986 till May 31, 1996, the date on which she would have superannuated from service on attainment of the age of 55. The learned Single Judge directed the Government to quantify the monetary loss caused to respondent No.1 and to recover the said amount “ from the Manager personally and from his assets” after hearing him. 4. The Government has admittedly completed the above exercise and passed Annexure 1 order in compliance of the direction contained in the impugned judgment. The Government has quantified the pay and allowances payable to respondent No.1 from June 1, 1986 till May 31, 1996 at Rs. 2,20,406/- apart from the ad hoc bonus/festival allowance of Rs. 13,894/-. Thus the total amount payable to respondent No.1 is quantified as Rs. 2,34,300/-. 5. The appellant, who is the present Manager of the school, has come up in appeal with the primary grievance that the finding of the learned Single Judge that he would be personally liable to make good the monetary loss sustained by respondent No.1 is wholly untenable and illegal. It is pointed out by the appellant that he became the Manager of the school in March 2008 in his capacity as the W.A.No.936/2010 3 President of the Devaswom to which the school belongs. His tenure is due to end in March 2011. It is contended by the appellant that even assuming respondent No.1 had been denied appointment by his predecessors while they were holding the post of Manager, the learned Single Judge ought not to have held the appellant, who is the present incumbent personally liable. 6. We find considerable force in the above contention. Indisputably, the school belongs to Panayannarkavu Devaswom. The President of the Devaswom is usually put in charge of the management of the school. The term of President of Devaswom is for three years. It is also the admitted position that in the year 1986, when respondent No.1 was found entitled for appointment in the school, one Kuttan Pillai, the then President of the Devaswom, was acting as the Manager of the school. Any how, we do not propose to go in detail into that issue at this stage. Suffice it to say that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to recover the dues payable to respondent No.1 “personally and from his assets” cannot be sustained at all. Therefore, the said direction is set aside. In all other respects, the impugned W.A.No.936/2010 4 judgment is affirmed. W.A.No.1491/2010 is disposed of in the above terms. It is made clear that the Management-Devaswom will be liable to pay the dues, which will be a charge on its assets. W.A.No.936/2010 was filed by the Manager aggrieved by the interim order issued by the learned Single Judge. The writ petition has been disposed by the learned Single Judge thereafter against which W.A.No.1491/2010 was filed. Since we have already disposed of W.A.No.1491/2010, this appeal does not survive for any further consideration. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. W.A.No.936/2010 5