IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 32215 of 2005(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.K.VENUGOPALAN, H.S.A. (HINDI), G.V.H.S.S. PORUR, CHANTHANKOTTUPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, ADV. SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.B. REMANI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.32215/2005-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE P.1. AS P.D. TEACHER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 05/03/1999 PROMOTING THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF H.S.A. (HINDI). EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/04/2000 REVERTING THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF PRIMARY TEACHER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 30/03/1996. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 04/12/2003 IN O.P. 8060/2002. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26/08/2004 PROMOTING 14 PRIMARY TEACHERS TO THE POST OF H.S.A. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28/10/2004 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. TO THE R.1. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. A2/11660/03 DTD. 27/01/2005 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM TO THE HEADMASTER, G.H.S.S. PORUR. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 22/02/2005 IN W.P.(C).6109/2005. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 05/06/1999. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 14/07/2005. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 07/09/2005 ISSUED BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32215/2005 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was initially appointed as a P.D Teacher in 1993. By Ext.P2 order he was given a temporary promotion as HSA, but was reverted with effect from 25.4.2000. 2. The method of filling up of the post of teachers is specified in Ext.P4 Government Order. Ext.P4 Government Order also specified the quota to be maintained. Complaining that the quota had broken down and that without regard to the cadre strength, vacancies were being filled up by direct recruitment, an original petition was filed before this court as O.P.No.8060/2002. That original petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment holding that vacancies in the post of HSA (Malayalam) has to be computed on the basis of cadre strength. It is also stated WP(c).No.32215/05 2 that following the directions, by Ext.P6, 14 P.D. teachers were given promotion and the petitioner is at serial No.10 thereof. 3. Petitioner submits that, two of his juniors, complained about the absence of the effective date of promotion in Ext.P6 and that the said complaint was directed to be considered by this court in the judgment in WP(c).No.10583/2004. It is stated that accordingly the claim was considered by the Deputy Director, who by Ext.P7 order granted retrospectivity to their promotion with effect from 14.9.94, when they were given temporary promotion as HSA. Petitioner submits that by Ext.P8 his claim is for the same benefit and that the same was declined by Ext.P9. Petitioner challenged Ext.P9 order before this court in WP (c).No.6109/2005 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment directing consideration of his representation, produced here as Ext.P12. The claim was accordingly examined and by Ext.P13 it has been turned WP(c).No.32215/05 3 down. It is challenging Ext.P13, this writ petition is filed. 4. The main complaint of the petitioner is regarding denial of retrospectivity to his promotion on a par with the beneficiaries of Ext.P7 order. A reading of the impugned orders and the counter affidavit would show that the reason for giving retrospectivity in Ext.P7 is that those persons, though juniors to the petitioner, had availed of temporary promotions in 1996, whereas, the petitioner availed of temporary promotion only by Ext.P2 order dated 5.3.1999. The counsel for the petitioner contends that temporary promotion could not have been a basis for giving earlier promotion to his juniors. But however, the fact remains that the petitioner himself is beneficiary of temporary promotion and his promotion is effective from 5.3.1999. As already noticed, when his claim was examined, following the direction of this court in Ext.P10 judgment, he has been given promotion with effect from 5.3.1999, when he was given temporary promotion by Ext.P2 order. Therefore, the WP(c).No.32215/05 4 claim of the petitioner that temporary promotion cannot be a basis for giving any benefit to the beneficiaries of Ext.P7 cannot be accepted as the petitioner himself is enjoying the same benefit. 5. The next complaint of the petitioner is that his juniors are enjoying better emoluments than him. This naturally is because of early temporary promotion availed of by such juniors mentioned in Ext.P7, by responding to the notification, when application was invited. If that be so, the petitioner cannot find fault with the authorities for having given the wages that are legitimately due to the so called juniors. In view of this I do not think that the petitioner's case deserves merits acceptance. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.32215/05 5