IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 19675 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. USHA K.K., KOTTILAPURATH HOUSE, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR-680545. 2. VINAYA C, PALIYATH HOUSE, THAIKKAD, GURUVAYOOR - 680 104. 3. SEEMA V, KONJADATH VALAPPIL HOUSE, THIPPILISSERY, KARIKKAD, THRISSUR-680 519. 4. JIJI K, KANDARASSERY HOUSE, BABY ROAD, MANATHALA, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR. 5. P.SIMI, SREE NANDANAM, KANNAMKOTTU BAZAR, GURUVAYOOR,. 6. SYAMA T.M,. THEKKEPATTU HOUSE,VENKITUNGUM THRISSUR-680 510 7. SREVIDYA S.A,. NO.A4, DEVASWOM QUARTERS, NANMINI, GURUVAYUR. 8. SAROJAM V.S, VAYAKKATTIL HOUSE, ENGANDIYOOR PO, THRISSUR. 9. M.NISHA, W/O.T.KRISHNANKUTTY"KARTHIKA", WEST NADA, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 10. D.J.MALATHI, W/O.A.N.BALAKRISHNAN, ADOOPARAMBIL HOUSE, MALA PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 11. T.SUBHA, W/O.PAVITHRAN,A-12, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM STAFF QUARTERS, PO.NENMINI, THYKADU, TRICHUR,. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE GURUVAYUR 680 101, TRICHUR DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,GURUVAYUR 680 101. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, GURUVAYUR - 680 101,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. CENTRAL BOARD OF SSECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, CHENNAI. 5. MALA VENUGOPAL, KUTTANKULANGARA HOUSE, PO.CHOONDAL,THRISSUR. 6. NISHA SANTHOSH, MATHRAMKOTTE, THIRUVATHRA, CHAVAKKAD. 7. P.G.SUBITHA, SOUPARNIKA, MEDICAL COLLEGE ROAD,PO.MUNDUR 8. PRASANNAKUMARI V.P, MUNDATH HOUSE, PUTHANPALLI PO, GURUVAYUR. 9. ABHINEETHA K.B, KANDANASSERY HOUSE, CHOWANUR, KUNNAMKULAM. 10. ANJU C.R, FLAT NO.2C, WESTEND PALACE, NEAR VEKUTABBYR TEMPLE-680021. 11. RADHAKRISHNAN P, POCKINHARI HOUSE, NADUVATHUR PO, KOYILANDI- 673 330. 12. LASITHA K.R., MAHIMA,NENMINI, THAIKKAD, GURUVAYUR. 13. RAGEE K.R,, PAMBUNGAL HOUSE, PONNORE, PARAPPUR-680 552. 14. DR.RAJALAKSHMY M.S,. MANOZHY HOUSE, URAKAM, THRISSUR. 15. SOBHANA P.A, PONNILLAM, SRI KRIPA, KARATHUPARAMBU,GURUVAYUR 16. VALSALA T.K, THEKKENCHERI HOUSE, KATTAKAMPAL PO,PALATTUMUIRY. 17. DEEPA C, DEEPA NIVAS,VANGASSERY PO, OTTAPPALAM. 18. SHYLAJAM P, PARAPUR HOUSE, CHOWANNUR, KUNNAMKULAM (TGT) 19. PRASEETHA P, KRISHNA PRIYA, PUTHANPALLI PO, MAMMIYOOR. 20. SIJI K.G, KARUMATHIL HOUSE, KARNAMKOT BAZAR, GURUVAYUR. 21. JAYALAKSHMI V.T, A-11, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM STAFF QUARTERS, NENMINI. 22. SHARMI K.A, KARIMBAN HOUSE, MANATHALA BEACH, CHAVAKKAD, 23. ANJANA N.N., NEERTHATTIL HOUSE, PALUVAI, CHAVAKKAD. 24. K.P.SUDHA, CHERASSERI PUSHPAKAM, ENKAKKAD, VADAKKANCHERI-680 589. 25. RAGI S.VARIER, CHAITHRAM, NO.15, THULASI NAGAR, GURUVAYUR. 26. JISHA NAVEEN P, MAMPUZHA HOUSE, KOTTAPPADI. 27. SATHIDEVI K, KADAMBAT HOUSE, PO.KAVALAPPARA, SHORNUR. 29. DIVYA C.V, CHAZHIPPADATH HOUSE, MUKKATTUKARA,NETTISSERY PO. 30. JAYASREE P.P, SREENANDANAM, PO.NHAMANGHAT, KACHERIPADI. 31. SRUTHI K.C, KARUMATHIL HOUSE, KAKKASSERI PO, THRISSUR-680 511. 32. DINESH P, VATTEKKAT HOUSE, ORUMANAYOOR PO. 33. SMITHA M, EDAPPURATH HOUSE, MANIKKATH PADI, GURUVAYUR. 34. UMADEVI N.M, KARUMATHAZHATHU MANA, PUNNAYYURKULAM PO, 35. SARITHA VIJAYAN, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, KANIPPAYYUR PO,KUNNAMKULAM. 36. LISHA RAMATH, NO.A3,DEVASWOM STAFF QUARATERS NEMINI, ERUMAPETTY-THRISSUR-680584. 37.GEETHA.A, EDUKAT WEST HOUSE, KUDAKUZHY KADANGOD PO., ERUMAPETTY, THRISSUR-680 584 ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS EXTS: EXT.P1:- COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2252/09 DTD.30.3.2010 EXT.P2:- COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2159/09 DTD.6.11.2009 EXT.P3:-COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. EC1-3291/2002(1) OF R2 EXT.P4:- COPY OF PROCEEDING NO.GDEMS/STAFF/2003/2 OF R2. EXT.P5:-COPY OF PROCEEDING NO.GDEMS/STAFF/2004 OF R2. EXT.P6:- COPY OF PROCEEDING NO.GDEMS/STAFF/2004 OF R2 EXT.P7:- COPY OF PROCEEDING NO.GDEMS/STAFF/2004 OF R2 EXT.P8:- COPY OF PROCEEDING OF R2 EXT.P9:-COPY OF SALARY OF ADHOC STAFF FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2003 EXT.P10:-COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF R2 EXT.P11:-COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF R2 EXT.P12: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY R2 EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF SERVICE OF THE PRESENT EMPLOYEES FOR 2010-2011 EXT.P13:- COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD.26.6.2009 IN WP(C) NO.18721/07 EXT.P14:- COPY OF DECISION NO.176 DTD.15.5.2010 PASSED BY R1 & R2 RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.19675 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners were appointed as teachers in Guruvayur Devaswom English Medium School on contract basis for different periods. The Guruvayur Devaswom English Medium School is managed by respondents 1 and 2. The school is affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education. The school is having classes from L.K.G to XIIth standard. According to the petitioners, they are qualified Post Graduate Teachers and Trained Graduate Teachers. They were appointed as teachers in the school after the selection made by the selection committee held by respondents 2 and 3. According to the petitioners, they were appointed after due selection process and after inviting applications. 2. It is not in dispute that during every year the selection process was undertaken and the W.P.(C).No.19675 OF 2010 2 teachers were appointed on contract basis. It is also not in dispute that they were being paid consolidated salary. No appointment orders were being issued. There is no specific regulation, regulating the selection and the appointment of teachers in the school. 3. During the academic year 2007-2008, applications were invited for appointment of teachers on contract basis. The petitioners herein and certain others filed WP(C) No.18721 of 2007 and 18052 of 2008 challenging the selection and appointment of party respondents therein. Those Writ Petitions were dismissed as per Ext.P13 judgment dated 26.6.2009. The learned Single Judge held in Ext.P13 judgment as follows: “Herein, as observed already, the terms of appointment is well known to the petitioners and therefore they cannot contend for the position that any appointment of persons like respondents 5 yo 15 in their places is arbitrary or illegal. They are not entitled to any relief of regularization or retention till other permanent hands join duty. They cannot claim that they have been validly selected and appointed after a due selection process, meant for regular posts.” W.P.(C).No.19675 OF 2010 3 4. It was also held by the learned Single Judge in Ext.P13 judgment that the affiliation bye-laws of Central Board of Secondary Education makes clear provisions to the effect that no teachers can be appointed on ad-hoc basis or on consolidated pay. Going by the affiliation bye-laws there should be approved terms and conditions of service. The learned Single Judge noticed the averments in the counter affidavit and the submissions made by the Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that the preparation of rules and regulations for the appointment of teachers and non teaching staff was under process. 5. The petitioners and others filed Writ Appeal Nos.2252/2009 and 2159/2009 against Ext.P13 judgment. W.A.No.2159/2009 was disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment. For the sake of convenience, the judgment is extracted below: “ The appellants are the petitioners. They have been working as teachers on contract basis under respondents 1 to 3 for more than a decade. As rightly pointed out by the W.P.(C).No.19675 OF 2010 4 learned Standing Counsel, it is an engagement on contract, on an yearly basis. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition directing respondents 1 to 3 to take prompt steps for registration of the bye-laws and preparation of the rules/regulations for making regular appointment. It is the contention of the appellants/petitioners that they are entitled to get preference as against fresh hands. The learned Standing Counsel also submits that the question of consideration of the appellants' case arises only if the appellants submit an application in response to the notification calling for such appointment. 2. We have no doubt in our minds that respondents 1 to 3 will take into consideration the long experience gained by the appellants/ petitioners as and when they make selection, pursuant to any notification to which the appellants would respond.” 6. The allegation of the petitioners is that disregarding the directions by the Division Bench, respondents 1 to 3 issued Ext.P12 proceedings dated 29.5.2010 extending the service of teaching and non teaching staff appointed on ad hoc basis for the academic year 2010-11 also. Ext.P12 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. There is also a prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to re-appoint the petitioners. W.P.(C).No.19675 OF 2010 5 7. A statement dated 15th July, 2010 is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, wherein it is stated as follows: “2. It is submitted that as directed by this Hon'ble Court in the judgment dated 26.6.2009 in WP(C) No.18721/07 and 18052/08, the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee (the GDMC for short) initiated appropriate steps for registration of the bye-laws and to prepare appropriate rules and regulations for making permanent appointment in 2009 itself. A sub-committee was constituted vide resolution No.58 dated 14.10.2009 of the GDMC to prepare draft bye-laws, rules and regulations. Accordingly, the sub committee prepared a draft and submitted it to the GDMC for approval and necessary further action. The GDMC which met on 11.2.2010 had approved the draft vide resolution No.14 and resolved to send the same to the Guruvayur Devaswom Commissioner for his approval. It is submitted that as decided by the GDMC, the proposal was sent to the Guruvayur Devaswom Commissioner for approval on 22.2.2010. It is pertinent to state here that the intention of the GDMC was to get approved the rules & regulations and to register the bye-laws in the academic year 2010-11 itself and to make appointment as per the bye-laws. Hence, no steps had been taken to invite applications for appointment of teachers on temporary basis for the academic year 2010-11 well in advance. Unfortunately Guruvayur Devaswom could not implement the bye-laws and rules & regulations in 2010-11 as the Guruvayur Devaswom Commissioner wanted some clarifications in the proposal. In the circumstances there was no other way before the GDMC but to re-engage the teachers who were engaged in the previous year on contract basis since otherwise it would adversely affect the smooth functioning of the school and also affect the students. As W.P.(C).No.19675 OF 2010 6 such the GDMC vide resolution No.176 dated 15.5.2010 resolved to engage the Ad-hoc staff that had served in the last year on contract basis and issued orders accordingly on 29.5.2010. It is pertinent to state here that it has clearly been specified in the order that the appointment is purely temporary and one on contract basis and that the candidates have no claim or right for regular appointment or retention in-service in any vacancy that would arise in future. It is also specified in the agreement that the appointment is for a period of 10 months in the academic year 2010-11 or till regular appointment is made which ever is earlier. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 4. It is specifically submitted that the GDMC will take all efforts to register the bye- laws and to get approved the rules and regulations at the earliest. As stated earlier the correspondence in this regard is going on.” 8. A reply affidavit is filed on behalf of the petitioners, wherein they have disputed the averments in the counter statement. However, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out on what basis the averments made in the counter statement is disputed. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the records of the minutes and meeting could be produced to verify the correctness of the statements made in the counter statement. The learned counsel for the W.P.(C).No.19675 OF 2010 7 petitioners submitted that production of records may not be quite necessary and that the Writ Petition can be disposed of on the basis of averments in the Writ Petition and the counter statement. 9. On a careful consideration of Ext.P13 judgment of the learned Single Judge and Ext.P2 judgment of the Devision Bench, it is fairly clear that the Division Bench did not interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge on the question of entitlement of the petitioners to claim appointment. On the other hand, the Division Bench took particular care to protect the interests of the petitioners/ appellants to secure a job in the school on the basis of due selection process. It was also noticed by the Division Bench that the long experience gained by the appellants would also been taken note of by respondents 1 to 3. 10. Now the question to be considered is whether Ext.P12 is legal and valid. In the light W.P.(C).No.19675 OF 2010 8 of statements made in the counter statement, it cannot be said that the respondents 1 and 2 committed any error in issuing Ext.P12 order. It is made clear in Ext.P12 itself, that the appointment of the party respondents in this Writ Petition would not confer on them any special rights and that they cannot claim any preference only on the ground that they were appointed as per Ext.P12. This itself is a sufficient safeguard to the interests of the petitioners. 11. Though Ext.P12 order is not interfered with, I am of the view that respondents 1 and 2 are duty bound to frame the rules and regulations and register the bye-laws for the purpose of regulating the selection and appointment of teachers in the school. It is true that there is some explanation for the delay in finalizing the rules and regulations and bye-laws, but such delay should not be pleaded at all times. There will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to finalize the rules and regulations and to register the bye-laws as W.P.(C).No.19675 OF 2010 9 expeditiously as possible, so that for the next academic year, namely, 2011-2012, appointments of teaching and non teaching staff in the school could be made only on the basis of such rules, regulations, and bye-laws. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms