IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 WA.No. 1395 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RP.521/2010 Dated 23/06/2010 & JUDGMENT DATED 19/02/2010 IN OP NO.11253/2003 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN W.P.(C)/REVIEW PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------- K.MURALEEDHARAN,LECTURER IN ENGLISH SMSN VHS SCHOOL,VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WP(C) / RESPONDENTS IN REVIEW PETITION --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,DIRECTORATE OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MS.T.B.REMANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ---------------------------------- W.A.No.1395 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge rejecting appellant's claim for salary as a Full Time Lecturer from 1995 onwards. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Appellant was appointed as a Lecturer on contract basis on a consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- per month in an aided school, which is not a party in the Writ Petition or in the Writ Appeal. Vide Ext.P3 order, the Government granted pay scale of Rs.2,000- 3,200/- per month to permanent teachers who were engaged for 12 to 20 hours in the week in a School. The School, admittedly had only 24 hours teaching in the subject “English”, and since there was already one teacher on full time basis, appellant's appointment itself was unnecessary. However the appellant was given wages under contract employment by the Management. The appellant's claim for being treated as a regular teacher from 1995 to 2001 was turned down for the reason that the teacher senior to the appellant could W.A.No.1395/2010 -2- have been engaged for taking classes for 24 hours, which was permissible under the Rules. However later, on account of commencement of new courses, the working hours went up to 36 hours providing vacancies of two full time lecturers, of which one was granted to the appellant. The appellant, in fact, got the scale of pay of full time lecturers from 01/06/2001 onwards, and the same is clarified by the learned Single Judge in the order in R.P.No.521/2002. The Writ Appeal is filed for a direction to the respondents to grant scale of pay to the appellant treating him as a Full Time Lecturer from 1995 to June 2001. We are unable to accept this contention because considering the fact that the working hours of an English teacher in the School was only 24 hours and after engaging a permanent teacher for 20 hours the balance working hours left for the appellant was only 4 hours. Consequently the appellant's claim was rightly declined by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) jg