IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 8763 of 2007(R) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- MAJEEDA BEEGOM.M., FORMERLY SEWING TEACHER, ALL SAINTS HIGH SCHOOL, PUTHAYAM, KARUKONE P.O., VIA. ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT THENGUVILA VEEDU, THADICADU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY MR.K.JAJU BABU, ADVOCATE. MS.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE. MS.DHANYA CHANDRAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. THE MANAGER, ALL SAINTS HIGH SCHOOL, PUTHAYAM, KARUKONE P.O., VIA. ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY MR. VTK. MOHANAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.8763/2007 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R3 TO THE PETITIONER ON 28.10.03. EXT. P2 : COPY OF G.O.(P) No.112/2001/G.Edn. DTD. 26.3.01 ISSUED BY R1. EXT. P3 : COPY OF LETTER No.25998/K3/03/G.Edn. DTD.6.11.03 ISSUED BY R1 TO SRI.KODIKUNNIL SURESH M.P., ADOOR. EXT. P4 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, KERALA STATE DTD. 18.11.03. EXT. P5 : COPY OF LETTER No.71595/K3/05/G.Edn. DTD. 3.4.06/ 17.5.06 ISSUED BY R1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8763 OF 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders leading to Exhibit P5 wherein the claim for protection allowable to the teachers was rejected by the Government. 2. The service particulars of the petitioner show that the petitioner was appointed as Sewing Teacher(HS) by the 3rd respondent in a newly created vacancy during the year 1986-87 with effect from 08.07.1986. The appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer namely, the 2nd respondent with effect from 15.07.1986 as per Order No.3631/89 dated 08.03.1989. The second spell of appointment started from 01.06.1987 and the same was approved from 15.07.1987. The petitioner was retrenched on 16.07.1988 due to division fall. 3. The claim for protection is raised based on Exhibit P2 Government Order. Therein the Government ordered that all W.P.(C) No.8763/2007 2 aided school regular teachers appointed prior to 14.07.1996 who did not complete seven years of service on or before 15.07.1995 and who were not in service as on 14.07.1996 will be given protection. They will be absorbed in the future vacancies arising under the respective management. The period during which they are out of service till the date of deployment on protection will be regularised as eligible leave or Leave Without Allowance. 4. The reasons stated in Exhibits P3 and P5 to reject the claim of the petitioner is that documentary evidence is lacking to prove that the appointment of the teacher is against a regular vacancy or not. It is further stated in Exhibit P5 that during 1986-87 and 1988-89, sufficient number of girls were not available in the school to appoint a Sewing Teacher. 5. The petitioner contends that the said approach made by the Government is wrong in the light of the fact that the petitioner was appointed in a sanctioned post during the two academic years. It is also contended that since the appointment is within the period mentioned in Exhibit P2, the petitioner is entitled for protection. W.P.(C) No.8763/2007 3 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that going by the averments contained in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent itself, it can be seen that the post in which the petitioner was appointed is a regular one which was sanctioned under competent Government Orders and therefore, the Government ought to have granted protection to the petitioner. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is averred in paragraph 2 that a regular post of Sewing Teacher for one year from 15.07.1986 to 14.07.1987 was sanctioned to the school as per G.O.(Rt) No.199/89/G.Edn. dated 18.01.1989 by the Government. As per G.O.(Rt)No.8/91/G.Edn. dated 13.01.1991, the Government have allowed to continue the post upto 14.07.1988. It is also averred in paragraph 4 that the appointment for both the periods were approved by the District Educational Officer, Kottarakkara. After saying so, it is stated that there was no regular post for Sewing Teacher in the school. The said stand is un-understandable. 8. It is clear from the averments contained in the counter affidavit that the Government had sanctioned the post of Sewing W.P.(C) No.8763/2007 4 Teacher to the school. The appointment was approved also. It was a newly sanctioned post as evident from paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit itself. The stand taken that the teacher was not working on regular basis is therefore not correct. The post is a newly sanctioned one and it was a regular one as admitted by the 1st respondent in the counter affidavit. 9. The stand appears to be that the petitioner was working only for a limited period. But, going by the terms of Exhibit P2, the question is only whether the petitioner was appointed prior to 15.07.1995 on regular basis. As mentioned above, it is clear from the averments in paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit itself that a regular post of Sewing Teacher was sanctioned to the school by separate Government Orders. Therefore, it is clear that the entire facts regarding the appointment of the petitioner have not been considered by the Government while passing Exhibits P3 and P5. Hence, Exhibits P3 and P5 are quashed. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter in the light of the findings rendered above and appropriate orders shall W.P.(C) No.8763/2007 5 be passed, after hearing the petitioner also, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp