IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 8313 of 2006(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ N.K.NALINI, H.S.A.(HINDI), GOVT.H.S.S., ATHAVANAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T. MOHAMMED FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.8313/2006 M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/04/2000. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 30/03/1996. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT O.P.NO.8060/2002 DTD. 4/12/2003. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.10583/2003 DTD.28/05/2004. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26/08/2004 PROMOTING 14 PRIMARY TEACHERS TO THE POST OF H.S.A. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28/10/2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.N.DIS.A2/3146/06 DTD. 18/02/2006 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM TO THE HEADMASTER G.H.S.S., ATHAVANAD. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.37311/2004 DTD. 18/01/2005. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2/39032/04 DTD. 10/02/2005. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 25/09/2001. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 8313 OF 2006 M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of October 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was appointed as a junior Language Teacher (Hindi) with effect from 2.6.1986. Initially she was promoted as H.S.A. with effect from 31.5.1996 on temporary basis under Rule 31 of K.S. & S.S.R. However, by Ext. P1 order dated 25.4.2000 she was reverted as Junior Language Teacher. 2. According to the petitioner, other similarly situated teachers claimed promotion from the date of their initial temporary promotion as H.S.A. and by Ext. P4 judgment in O.P. No. 10583/03 filed by two teachers who, according to the petitioner, are juniors to her, this Court directed the authorities to consider their claim in the light of the judgment in O.P. No. 8060/02, where it has been held that the prescribed ratio is to be applied on the cadre strength. 3. Petitioner submits that in pursuance to Ext. P4, the claims of the teachers were considered and 14 teachers were promoted as W.P.(C) No. 8313 OF 2006 -2- H.S.As., by Ext. P5 order dated 26.8.2004. In Ext. P5, petitioner is Sl. No. 2 and the petitioners to Ext. P4 judgment are 7 and 14. It is stated that some of the juniors of the petitioner, again claimed promotion with retrospective effect, ie. from the date on which they were temporarily promoted. That claim was considered by the 6th respondent and by Ext. P6 order, the petitioners in Ext. P4 judgment were given retrospective promotion from the date of their initial temporary promotion. 4. At that stage, petitioner filed Ext. P7 representation claiming benefit of retrospective promotion, but the same was rejected by Ext. P8 on the ground that the initial promotion as HSA (Hindi) was purely on temporary basis and therefore seniority of promotion could not be claimed. Despite this, when the similar benefit was claimed by identically situated teachers, by filing W.P.(C) No. 37311/04, on behalf of the respondents therein, it was offered that the benefit of Ext. P6 will be extended to them. This is seen recorded in the judgment, copy of which is produced as Ext. P9. 5. Petitioner also submits that in pursuance to Ext. P9 judgment, Ext. P10 order was issued, extending the benefit of W.P.(C) No. 8313 OF 2006 -3- retrospective promotion to the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 37311/04. Thus, the contention that is raised in this writ petition is that though several teachers including juniors to the petitioner, who were also given initial promotion on temporary basis, they have been granted promotion and their promotion has been regularised with retrospective effect and that the same benefit has been declined in so far the petitioner is concerned. 6. As already noticed, the claim of the petitioner is for parity with the beneficiaries of Exts. P4, P6, P9 and P10. According to the petitioner, the beneficiaries of these orders include juniors to her as well. Therefore, if benefit of retrospective regularisation of promotion has been extended to the teachers who include juniors of the petitioner also, I do not see any reason why similar benefit should be declined to the petitioner. Therefore, the matter needs to be re-examined and on such re-examination if it is found that at least one junior to the petitioner has been given retrospective promotion from the date of initial temporary promotion, the same benefit should be extended to the petitioner also. 7. The 1st respondent shall re-examine the claim of the W.P.(C) No. 8313 OF 2006 -4- petitioner taking into account Exts. P4, P6, P9 and P10 and pass appropriate orders in this matter. In order to enable the 1st respondent to do so, Ext. P8 will stand quashed. The whole exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 months of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-