IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2009 / 21ST ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28031 of 2003(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. MOHINI. K.S., FULL TIME JR.HINDI TEACHER, GOVT.H.S.SCHOOL, UDMA, KASARAGODE. 2. P.P. JANAKI, FULL TIME JR.HINDI TEACHER, GOVT.U.P.SCHOOL, ADKATHBAIL, KASARAGODE. BY ADV. MR.JOHN K.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT OFFICER, KASARAGODE. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARAGODE. R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SREELATHA. R2 BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON 13/10/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 28031/2003-K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/07/95 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20/03/1995 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF GOVT. ORDER DATED 30/03/1996 FIXING THE METHOD OF APPOINTMENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/08/2000 IN O.P. NO. 15046/2000. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 10/10/2000 IN W.A. NO. 901/2000. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08/12/2000. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF QUALIFIED P.D. TEACHERS H.S.A. (HINDI) KASARAGODE DISTRICT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/01/2001 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.28031/2003-K ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The issue that is raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is in a short compass. The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P8 by which the persons like the petitioners, who were temporarily promoted as H.S.A (Hindi), were ordered to be reverted to provide candidates recruited by P.S.C. It is submitted that going by the quota available in terms of the ratio, the petitioners were entitled to continue based on the provisional appointment. 2. The first petitioner was originally appointed as Part-time Hindi Teacher on 01/12/1988 and later as a Full-time Teacher on 31/01/1992 through the P.S.C. She was posted as H.S.A on 19/07/1995 at Government High School, Mangalppady. The second petitioner was selected by the P.S.C as Junior Language Teacher (Hindi) and appointed at Government High School, Udma on 23/01/1992. She was promoted as H.S.A on 20/03/1995 as per Ext.P2 order. 3. It is contended that the ratio between the promotees and direct recruits is 1:1 and Ext.P3 is the Government Order providing the same. W.P.(C). No.28031/2003 -:2:- Ext.P4 judgment is relied upon to contend that at that time 88 vacancies had to be filled up in the post of H.S.A (Hindi) in Kasaragod District. Ext.P5 judgment is also relied upon to show that 1:1 ratio had to be followed strictly. It is therefore contended that the direct recruits are entitled to 44 posts and the promotees the remaining 44 posts. The third respondent ought to have followed 1:1 ratio, contends the petitioners. 4. Ext.P6 is the order by which the Government regularised service of temporary promotees who were appointed and promoted in accordance with Rule 31(a)(i) of KS & SSR. It is the case of the petitioners that this order was passed not in accordance with the actual number of vacancies to which the promotees are entitled. Some of the retirees were also included and, therefore, actually only 15 were regularised as against 18. It is therefore, contended that 29 more promotees ought to have been regularised in compliance with the ratio of 1:1. It is pointed out that 54 vacancies were reported to the P.S.C by the third respondent illegally. It is in these circumstances the petitioners have approached this Court. 5. In the counter affidavit the entire position has been explained. The fact that the 1:1 ratio has to be implemented is also admitted. It is pointed out that though 88 vacancies were available, 54 out of these 88 W.P.(C). No.28031/2003 -:3:- vacancies were reported to K.P.S.C for direct recruitment. It is further pointed out that 88 vacancies are not meant for promotion, but accumulated, for years; the 54 vacancies being reported to P.S.C at different intervals. Therefore, the whole vacancies cannot be earmarked for candidates coming under different methods of appointment. It is also pointed out that since the petitioners were promoted only on temporary basis, in the vacancies set apart for direct recruits through P.S.C, they are liable to be reverted. 6. It is clear from the pleadings that 54 vacancies were reported for appointment through P.S.C by direct recruitment. Even though it is contended that going by 1:1 ratio 44 ought to have been filled up by promotees, in the absence of sufficient materials, this Court cannot definitely conclude that 44 vacancies as on that date ought to have been filled up by promotees. Going by the contentions raised by the respondents, 54 were due for direct recruits. The P.S.C hands were appointed also. It is clear from Ext.P8 that to fill up the total number of 54 candidates 32 temporary promotees had to be reverted. The petitioners have not been able to produce sufficient material to show that the actual number of vacancies to be filled up by P.S.C hands is not 54 but a lesser number. W.P.(C). No.28031/2003 -:4:- 7. Apart from that none of the persons appointed by direct recruitment are parties before this Court in this writ petition. In the absence of them in the party array, this Court will not be justified in passing any orders either in regard to the eligibility of the petitioners or as regards the question whether the entire 54 ought not have been filled up by P.S.C hands. 8. Therefore, on both these grounds, the petitioners are not entitled to succeed in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms