IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 1644 of 2004(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.MRUDULA MENON, W/O. MANOJ, AGED 27 YEARS, JUNIOR HINDI TEACHER S.D.V. HIGH SCHOOL, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 4. THE MANAGER, S.D.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANAL KUMAR FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1644 of 2004(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS.B6/6216/02 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.12.2002. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS.B6/6270/2001 OF -DO- DATED 7.10.2001. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS.859/03/RA(2)/DPI OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.3.2003. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 30.4.2003. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt.)NO.4373/2003/G.Edn.OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 28.10.2003. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): A TRUE COPY OF G NO.D.DIS/1733/2002/RA(2)/DPI DATED 15.5.2002 EXT.R1(b): A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.12171/2001/K.DIS. DATED 3.7.2002. // TRUE COPY // TKS C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.1644 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated 10th August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as Junior Hindi Teacher in the 4th respondent's school with effect from 6.6.2001. The said appointment was approved by the competent educational authority. However, pursuant to the staff fixation order for the year 2002-2003, the post held by the petitioner was abolished by the third respondent as per Ext.P1. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the fourth respondent Manager took up the matter in appeal before the second respondent. However, the second respondent rejected the appeal as per Ext.P3 and confirmed the order passed by the third respondent. The Manager has taken up the matter in revision before the first respondent. In fact, feeling aggrieved by the delay in the matter of disposal of the revision petition, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C)No.20943 of 2003. Pursuant to the judgment in the said writ petition, the first respondent passed Ext.P5 order on Ext.P4 revision petition. As per Ext.P5, Ext.P4 revision petition was rejected. This writ petition has been filed in the said circumstances challenging Exts.P1, P3 and P5 and with a further prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the third respondent to restore the post of Junior Hindi Teacher existed in the 4th WP(C).No.1644/2004 2 respondent's school and also to sanction the eligible additional post of H.S.A.(Hindi) during the academic year 2002-2003. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that in case the staff fixation order is reviewed in the light of rule 6F of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules, it would definitely result in sanctioning of an additional post of H.S.A.(Hindi). The said contention of the petitioner is founded on the factual position that in the U.P. Section of the school 48 periods are available for Hindi and in its High School Section 54 periods are available for Hindi. Therefore, it is contended that the school is entitled to get one more post of H.S.A.(Hindi) in the light of rule 6F(a) which reads thus: “6F.(a) If on combination the number of left over periods in the High School section and Upper Primary sections together is 25 or above but below 29 in the case of Hindi, Arabic, Urdu and Sanskrit and below 30 in the case of other language except Regional Languages, one full time post in the High School Section may be sanctioned, provided that the number of left over periods in the High School section is 4 or above in the case of Hindi, Arabic, Urdu and Sanskrit and 5 or above in other cases. If on combination, the number of left over periods in the High School section and Upper Primary section together is 29 or above in the case of Hindi, Arabic, Urdu and Sanskrit and 30 or above in the case of other language except Regional Languages but less than 39, one full time post in the High School Section and one full time post in the Upper Primary section may be sanctioned.” Going by the said provision, if on combination the number of left over periods in the High School section and U.P. section taken together is 25 or above, but below 29 in the case of Hindi or Arabic, one full time post in the High School section could be sanctioned. Here, admittedly, WP(C).No.1644/2004 3 the left over period is 27, i.e., above 25 but below 29. In view of the said factual position obtained in this case and in the light of the specific provision under rule 6F(a) of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules the contention that the 4th respondent's school is entitled to get a third full time post of H.S.A. (Hindi) cannot be said to be bereft of any basis. 3. In this writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent. In paragraph 4 of the said counter affidavit it is stated thus: “4. It is admitted that the school was eligible for 3 HSA Hindi post and 1 Junior Hindi post during 2001-02. ie., after allowing the request of the Manager by DPI vide D.Dis.1733/02/DPI dated 15.5.02. It is true that both the Junior Hindi teachers are eligible for promotion. The Manager is the competent authority to give promotion. He has not done so during 2001-02 or 2002-03. This resulted in the retrenchment of the petitioner.” It is thus obvious from the above extracted statement from the said counter affidavit that in case the Manager effects promotion to the third post of H.S.A. (Hindi), in tune with the statement made thereunder, it would automatically redress the grievances of the petitioner. Thus, it is obvious that the situation for retrenching the petitioner has occasioned on account of inaction on the part of the Manager to take up the matter in such a manner to get the third H.S.A. (Hindi) post sanctioned. It is, now, evident from the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent that during 2001-2002 and WP(C).No.1644/2004 4 2002-2003 the school belonging to the 4th respondent was entitled to get three H.S.A. (Hindi) posts and one Junior Hindi post. In view of the position thus obtained from the counter affidavit and the admitted factual position and Rule 6F(a) of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules, Exts.P1, P3 and P5 are liable to be set aside and accordingly they are set aside. Consequentially, there will be a direction to the third respondent to take appropriate action in terms of the specific statement in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit for the purpose of sanctioning three H.S.A. (Hindi) posts and one Junior Hindi post in the 4th respondent's school. Once the third respondent takes such an action in terms of paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, the fourth respondent shall issue appropriate orders in terms of the relevant provisions under the Kerala Education Rules to effect promotion to the third post of H.S.A.(Hindi) sanctioned in the said school. Consequential orders shall also be passed by the third respondent on receipt of such proposal from the fourth respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS