IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 3 of 2011(S) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21147/2009 DATED 29/01/2010 .................... PETITIONER/3RD PETITIONER: --------------------------------- S.SHEREEF,S/O.SULAIMAN,AGED 30 YEARS, R/AT SHERIF MANZIL, VATTAPPARA, PO CHERIYAVELINALLUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENT/4TH RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- SRI.RAJENDRAN,FATHER'S NAME & AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,KOLLAM - 691 013,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Con.Case(C).No. 3 of 2011(S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE I : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21147 OF 2009 - K. ANNEXURE II : TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF VACANCIES. ANNEUXRE III: TRUE COPY OF OTHE INTERIM ORDER IN I.A. NO.5711/2010 IN W.P.(C) No.19541/2007-B. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case (Civil) No. 3 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the Government Pleader. The present Contempt proceedings are initiated on the ground that there is willful disobedience of directions given by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) Nos.35543 of 2007 and 21147 of 2009 dated 29.01.2010. The directions contain at paragraph 9 of the judgment reads as under: “9. Having regard to the facts of the case, we think, the following directions should be issued: The 3rd respondent Deputy Director of Education shall consider whether any protected teacher has been deployed after 01.11.2006. If the answer is in the affirmative, that deployment order shall be cancelled. The Deputy Director shall also assess whether any vacancy in the inter-district transferees' quota is remaining vacant without any claimants for the same. The vacancies, if any, available under the above two heads shall be reported to the Public Service Commission. The Deputy Director shall also assess the vacancies that may arise as a result of retirement of teachers on 31.03.2010 and if there are any vacancies available for Public Service Commission recruits, going by 65% - 35% quota, those vacancies shall also be reported to the COC No. 3 of 2011 -:2:- Public Service Commission. In the result, all the substantive vacancies available for Public Service Commission hands from 01.11.2006 and also the substantive vacancies that are available in the inter-district tranferees' quota without claimants shall, if so far not reported, be positively reported by the Deputy Director(Education) before 15.04.2010.” 2. When contempt proceedings were initiated, an affidavit came to be filed by one Mr.Rajendran, Deputy Director of Education, Kollam at the relevant point of time, on 17.01.2011. The relevant paragraphs in this affidavit explaining the details against each direction of the Court contained at paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 which read as under: “3. It is respectfully submitted that the appointment to the post of L.P.S.A.s is in the ratio of 65:35 between direct recruits and inter district transferees. The cadre strength of L.P.S.A.s (Malayalam) in Kollam District as on 30.04.2010 was 1529. As per the ratio 65% of the above posts are to be filled up through direct recruitment that is 994 posts had to be filled up by direct recruitment and the rest that is 535 through inter district transfer. As on the above date 1462 L.P.S.A.s were working of which 1115 were direct recruit hands appointed through the P.S.C and 331 inter district transferees. As on the above date the P.S.C hands were in excess by 121 and inter district transferees were short by 121. Pursuant to the directions in the above judgment the vacancies were assessed and it is found that no protected L.P.S.A.s were deployed COC No. 3 of 2011 -:3:- against the vacancies set apart for direct recruit hands after 01.11.2006. The protected teachers were only those who were deployed on work arrangement basis in the ratio 10:1 i.e. Primary Schools having ten class divisions were allotted 1 post of L.P.S.A on work arrangement basis without a regular post. It is respectfully submitted that after 01.11.2006 no protected teachers have been appointed against the regular posts of L.P.S.A.(Malayalam) in the Kollam District. 4. Pursuant to the second direction regarding inter district transferees on assessment it was found that the allotment of inter district transferees usually exceeded the quota available for them and therefore it was assessed that no vacancies in the inter district transferee quota would remain vacant for want of claimants for the above year. The retirement vacancies of L.P.S.A.s as on 31.03.2010 was also assessed pursuant to the directions in Annexure I judgment and it was found that a total of 22 retirement vacancies would arise as on 31.03.2010 and while implementing the ratio 13 retirement vacancies would have to be filled up through direct recruitment. The above 13 vacancies along with 65% of assessed 17 additional vacancies. i.e. 12 were reported to the P.S.C on 09.04.2010. As against the above 25 vacancies, 11 candidates were appointed on the advice by the P.S.C. It is submitted that 212 vacancies have been reported to the P.S.C during the tenure of the ranked list and appointments have been effected to t192 posts on the basis of advise by the P.S.C. 5. It is respectfully submitted that for the academic year 2010-11, a total of 67 vacancies were assessed pursuant to the directions in Annexure I judgment. The vacancies were 22 retirement vacancies, 17 additional COC No. 3 of 2011 -:4:- vacancies, 8 promotion vacancies, 17 existing vacancies and 3 death vacancies, totaling to 67. On issuance of staff fixation order for the academic year 2010-11, 27 posts of L.P.S.A (Malayalam) were abolished, thereby reducing the total vacancies to 40. Though as on 30.04.2010, the strength of direct recruit hands exceeded their quota. The ratio of 65:35 prescribed for appointment to L.P.S.A. cadre was applied to the 40 vacancies and total of 25 vacancies available for appointment through direct recruitment were reported to the Public Service Commission. As against the above 25 vacancies, Public Service Commission advised 12 candidates of which appointment was granted to 11 candidates who reported for joining duty. These 11 candidates have been duly appointed as L.P.S.A.s. 6. It is respectfully submitted that the directions in Annexure I judgment has been fully complied with. The statement by the petitioner that 138 vacancies are existing in the category of L.P.S.A.(Malayalam), it is submitted is not correct. It is submitted that as on 31.03.2010, the existing L.P.S.A. vacancies were only 17 in the district as against the 31 pointed out by the petitioner in Annexure II document. The additional L.P. divisions sanctioned were only 17 as against 18 stated by the petitioner. A total of 22 retirement vacancies had arisen as on 31.03.2010, however according to the petitioner, it is only 20. The total promotion vacancies available to be filled up from L.P.S.A. category were only 8 as against 31 pointed out by the petitioner. According to the petitioner the number of protected teachers appointed after 01.11.2006 is 13, but it is submitted that no protected teachers were deployed against the regular vacancies available to be filled up through direct recruitment. According to the petitioner, 5 death vacancies had COC No. 3 of 2011 -:5:- arisen in the post of L.P.S.A, but it is submitted that only 3 death vacancies have arisen as on 30.04.2010. The leave vacancies mentioned of by the petitioner as 20 as on 30.04.2010 are vacancies which were pending and had already been reported to the Public Service Commission. It is therefore submitted that there had arisen only 67 vacancies as on 30.04.2010 and deducting the posts abolished in the staff fixation order for the academic year 2010-11 only 40 vacancies were available for appointment. Applying the ratio, 26 vacancies were available for appointment through direct recruitment and 25 vacancies were reported to the Public Service Commission. It is respectfully submitted that even while reporting 25 vacancies for direct recruitment, the direct recruit hands were excess of their quota. 1115 direct recruit hands were already in service as against 994 posts available to them under their quota.” 3. Subsequently, a reply came to be filed by the complainant and to this, an additional affidavit came to be filed by one Mr.Ravindran, another Deputy Director of Education, Kollam at the relevant point of time, explaining how the statement of the complainant that, there are 138 vacancies is incorrect and what exactly is the position. Details substantiating paragraphs 3 to 6 of the counter affidavit were narrated in this additional affidavit explaining each and every aspect of the matter. The complainant was not satisfied with this additional COC No. 3 of 2011 -:6:- affidavit. Again a reply came to be filed. To this also additional reply came to be filed reiterating the contentions already stated in the counter affidavit and first additional affidavit along with a list at Annexure V explaining the vacancy position in a tabular form. The explanation and details in the three affidavits filed by the respondent authorities would indicate, they have complied with the directions of the Bench regarding the vacancy position and also with regard to deployment of teachers against regular vacancies. 4. The learned counsel for the complainant contends that there are some more vacancies and the details given herein are in correct. From where he gets such material, we are unable to understand. We note from the above, to a large extent, the details are furnished in response to the directions of the Court. We have to see whether there is willful disobedience of the directions of the Court concerned in a contempt matter. The duty of the complainant is only to bring to the notice of the Court whether any disobedience or disrespect is shown to the orders of this Court. Once it is brought to our notice, it is a matter COC No. 3 of 2011 -:7:- between the Court and the accused and it is left to the Court to see whether there is noncompliance of the directions, if any, how, and in what respect action can be taken against the persons who are responsible for disobedience and beyond that there is no role as such to be played by the complainant. The complainant cannot fight the litigation in a contempt matter as if it is an execution petition and see that the fruits of the decree are enjoyed by him. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, details furnished by the respondent authorities are indicating that there is compliance with the directions of the Court and there is no willful disobedience as such. Accordingly, the Contempt Proceedings are dropped. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb