IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 32809 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BINDU K. UNNITHAN, LOWER GRADE HINDI TEACHER, S.R.V. U.P.SCHOOL, PERUMPULICKAL, MANNAM NAGAR P.O., PANDALAM. BY MR.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS.MR .ANIL K.NAIR MR.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL MR.V.MADHUSUDHANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA. 3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PANDALAM. 4. MANAGER, S.R.V. U.P. SCHOOL, PERUMPULICKAL, MANNAM NAGAR P.O. PANDALAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.T.T.MUHAMOOD FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.32809/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS – B.1894/07 DT. 12.7.07 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.62/73.S.EDN. DT. 2.5.73. P3:- COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.189/82/G.EDN. DT. 14.12.82. P4:- COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.371/2000/G.EDN. DT. 13.11.2000. P5:- COPY OF THE APPEAL DT. 10.8.07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.1020/08 DT. 9.1.08. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/13174/07/K.DIS DT. 28.2.08 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DT. 27.3.08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.60812/E1/08/G.EDN. DT. 17.10.08 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P10:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS/C/3385/07 DT. 13.12.07 ISSUED BY THE A.E.O. ADOOR. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.32809/2008-E ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the conversion of the post of Full Time Hindi Teacher as a Part Time one in the school managed by the fourth respondent. She is a Post Graduate in Hindi with B.Ed. She was appointed as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher (Full Time), which arose on 03/01/2002 and that appointment has been duly approved by the second respondent. 2. In the academic year 2007-08, as per Ext.P1, staff strength was fixed. One class division was reduced and consequently, one post of U.P.S.A was reduced. This resulted in reduction of number of periods of Hindi. Therefore, the post of Full Time Hindi is reduced to Part Time and the petitioner is reverted as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher (Part Time) from 15/07/2007 in terms of the staff fixation orders. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that she is entitled to be treated as Full Time Teacher in the light of Ext.P2 Government Order, G.O. (MS).No.62/73.S.Edn., dated 02/05/1973. It is pointed out that Ext.P2 Government Order permits Part Time Language Teachers having more than W.P.(C). No.32809/2008 -:2:- 5 years service and having 8 periods of work, to be approved as Full Time Teachers with all consequential benefits. In the present school there are 14 periods of work for the petitioner and hence, she is entitled to be treated as Full Time Language Teacher, contends the petitioner. Exts.P3 and P4 are subsequent Government Orders issued reiterating the above position. The petitioner challenged Ext.P1 staff fixation order by filing Ext.P5 appeal which was rejected as per Ext.P7. The revision petition filed against the same was also rejected. Ext.P9 is the order thus passed. These orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The petitioner has produced along with I.A.No.14568/2008, Ext.P10 staff fixation order in respect of another school for the year 2007- 08, wherein, in similar circumstances, based on Ext.P2 Government Order dated 02/05/1973, Full Time benefit was granted to an existing teacher. 5. In the counter affidavit, it is pointed out that Exts.P2, P3 and P4 Government Orders will not apply to the petitioner, as there was no provision for retention of Full Time post and that these will apply only to Part Time posts which satisfy the requirements to be treated as Full Time posts. It is explained that the number of periods available for Hindi are only W.P.(C). No.32809/2008 -:3:- 14, which warrants sanction of a Part Time post of Lower Grade Hindi Teacher and, accordingly, the Full Time post was abolished. 6. The question is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Exts.P2, P3 and P4. Going by the specific terms of Exts.P2 to P4, what is provided is conversion of Part Time Language Teacher to a Full Time Teacher when the language teacher has put in more than five years of service and has more than 8 periods of work and therefore, the benefit is given to a Part Time Language Teacher. The reverse position is not covered by Exts.P2 to P4. Going by Rule 6 of Chapter XXIII of K.E.R, for sanction of a Full Time Post minimum 15 periods of work are required, whereas, herein only 14 periods are there. Therefore, unless the Rule or any other Government Order permits retention of a Full Time Teacher in cases where there are reduction of number of periods, the conversion of the Full Time post to Part Time post cannot be faulted. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed by the learned Government Pleader on Exts.P2 to P4 cannot be sustained. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the petitioner is continuing in the school, she is entitled to be paid salary in the post of Part Time Teacher and so far nothing has been paid. W.P.(C). No.32809/2008 -:4:- Since the staff fixation permits one post of Part Time Teacher, the learned counsel submits that there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner's right to receive salary cannot be denied. 8. The learned Government Pleader, relying upon the averments in the counter affidavit submits that the Manager should have produced an appointment order afresh appointing the petitioner as Part Time Teacher. 9. The circumstances under which the post became Part Time cannot obviously go against the petitioner as she is continuing in the school. The requirement of a separate appointment order, is not covered by any other statutory provision. But still it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that since there is a termination of the Full Time post and the sanction of a Part Time post, it requires a separate appointment order. As far as the tenure of the petitioner is concerned, there is continuance in service. 10. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:- The challenge against Exts.P1, P7 and P9 fails. There will be a direction to the fourth respondent Manager to forward necessary proposal in the case of the petitioner for continuance of the petitioner as a Part Time Teacher within a period of one month from the date of receipt of W.P.(C). No.32809/2008 -:5:- a copy of this judgment and on receipt of the same, the second and third respondents will pass appropriate orders granting approval, and the salary including arrears from 15/07/2007 will be disbursed, within a further period of two months thereafter. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms