IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 34181 of 2006(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. E.RAJAN, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, KUNNUMMEL U.P. SCHOOL, CHAMPAD P.O., CHOKLI SUB DISTRICT. 2. K.LOHITHAKSHAN, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, A.U.P.S., PODAVOOR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. A.K.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, EDAMANA U.P. SCHOOL, MATHAMANGALAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. K.S.HARIMOHANAN, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, PATTYAMMA U.P.SCHOOL, KARUVALLUR P.O., PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. SUJATHA T.K., PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, MALUR U.P. SCHOOL, MALUR P.O., THALASSERY. 6. E.PUSHPAKANTHI, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, KADANNAPPALLY U.P. SCHOOL, KADANNAPPALLY P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 7. JAYAPRAKASAN P.P., PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, PALAKKOOL U.P. SCHOOL, ELANGODE P.O., THALASSERY. 8. RAJEEVAN PALIL, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, DHARMADAM BASIC U.P. SCHOOL, DHARMADAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. W.P.(C) NO.34181/2006 9. K.PAVANAN, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, KAYANI U.P. SCHOOL, KAYANI P.O., MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 10. G.BABY SYLAJA, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, KANTHILERI U.P. SCHOOL, KANTHILERI P.O., MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.34181/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1:- COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.113/2000/G.EDN DT. 6.4.2000. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP. 32664/01 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DT 31ST OCTOBER 01. P3:- COPY OF THE GO(MS) 307/04/G.EDN. DT. 4.10.04. P4:- COPY OF THE G.O.(R) NO.101/05/G.EDN. DT. 5.1.05. P5:- COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.4896/2000/G.EDN. DT. 30.11.2000. P6:- COPY OF THE GO(RT) BNO.1324/2001/G.EDN. DT. 30.3.01. P7:- COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.3269/05/G.EDN. DT. 1.7.05. P8:- COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.5081/2000/G.EDN. DT. 12.12.2000. True copy P.A. TO JUDGE tss KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.34181 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 10th November, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed by the Government, refusing to regularize their service. The main contention of the petitioners is that the Government has been passing several orders regularizing the service of Physical Education Teachers, and all those teachers are juniors to the petitioners. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the case of the petitioners cannot be equated with those cases covered by Exts.P1, P3, P5, P6, P7 and P8. One reason stated is that as far as the petitioners covered by O.P.32664/01 is concerned, those 54 teachers were working without salary, whereas the petitioners herein were working as part time teachers. Yet another reason stated is that in the case of teachers covered by Exts.P5 and P6, regularization was made since they were appointed during the period when Government Circular dated 17.12.1998 was in force. As far as Ext.P7 is concerned, it is stated that the benefit was granted as a special case after relaxing the rule. In the case of Ext.P8, it is stated that a junior teacher in the same school was WP(C) NO.34181/2006 2 enjoying the full time benefit. There is no dispute that in all those cases, the required student strength of 500 was not available. Regularization was made by relaxing the rules. In the case of the petitioners also, they have been in service for over 20 years as part time. If the teachers appointed far subsequent to their entry in service can be regularized in service as full time, treating them as special cases, there is no reason why the petitioners should be discriminated. It is not a case of regularization being given in exceptional circumstances. Petitioners have produced six orders covering several teachers and majority of them came into service after the petitioners entered the service. Therefore, going by the very same principles of justice as stated in the counter affidavit itself, the petitioners are entitled to a similar treatment. No doubt, an irregularity cannot be the rule. But, this is not a situation of any irregularity in one exceptional case by way of regularization. It is a case of several similarly situated teachers, and many of them juniors to the petitioners, have been regularized in service. Therefore, there is no point in discriminating the petitioners. I quash Ext.P4 order. There will be WP(C) NO.34181/2006 3 a direction to the first respondent to extend a similar treatment to the petitioners as has been done in Exts.P1, P3, P5, P6, P7 and P8. The needful shall be done within three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.34181 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 10th November, 2008.