IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 15273 of 2008(R) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NANDAKUMAR.C, L.P.S.A, M.R.L.P. SCHOOL, CHERUKULAMBA, P.O., VATTALUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MANKADA. 3. THE HEADMASTER, M.R.L.P.SCHOOL, CHERUKULAMBA,P.O.VATTALUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.T. MOHAMMED. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.15273/2008-R: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14/12/1988 APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS L.P.S.A. IN MRLP SCHOOL, CHERUKULAMBA. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 06/06/1989 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD. 01/03/1995 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE OPTION STATEMENT ALONG WITH THE DECLARATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 14/11/2005. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16/11/2005 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 26/10/2007 IN W.P.(C). NO. 26512/2006. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 04/01/2008 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10/03/2008 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD. 06/03/1998 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 06/06/1980 OF THE GOVERNMENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15273/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P7 and P8 and to direct the respondents to count the provisional service rendered by the petitioner prior to his regular appointment as LPSA in M.R.L.P School, Cherukulamba from 14.12.1998, as qualifying service for granting the 2nd time bound higher grade. 2. The facts of the case are that, by Ext.P1 the petitioner was appointed on a regular basis in the school referred to above, an aided school. Prior to that, he had rendered provisional service of 526 days in the Government schools followed by 93 days in AUPS, Kuruva, an aided school. After having rendered service for the prescribed period, the petitioner claimed the second time bound higher WP(c).No.15273/2008 2 grade and he relied on Exts.P2 and P3. 3. When the statement of fixation claiming the benefit of 2nd time bound higher grade was submitted by Ext.P4, that was rejected by Ext.P5. Ext.P5 order was challenged before this court in WP(c).No.26512/2006. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment directing the petitioner to take up his claim before the first respondent and the first respondent was ordered to consider the matter. Accordingly the petitioner submitted a representation and that was rejected by Ext.P7. 4. In Ext.P7, the reason stated is that, since the method of appointment of teachers in Government schools and aided schools are not identical, the provisional service rendered in Government schools by aided school teachers are not reckoned for increment and therefore the said service will not count as qualifying service for time bound higher grade promotion in aided school. Petitioner sought a review of Ext.P7 and that also was rejected by Ext.P8. It is WP(c).No.15273/2008 3 in these circumstances this writ petition has been filed. 5. In the counter affidavit filed the respondents have reiterated the reasons stated in Exts.P7 and P8 to sustain their stand. The counsel for the petitioner rightly submits that, the method of appointment in Aided school and Government School is direct recruitment. Therefore, irrespective of whether the appointment is made by the Manager or through the agency of PSC, so long as the method of appointment remains direct recruitment, the reasons stated in Ext.P7 is unacceptable. 6. I do not think it necessary for me to examine the merits of this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the reason that this issue is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1224/2005 where a claim identical to the one raised by the petitioner has been accepted and relief has been granted. In view of this the petitioner is entitled to succeed. WP(c).No.15273/2008 4 7. Therefore, Exts.P7 and P8 will stand quashed and respondents are directed to determine the eligibility of the petitioner for second time bound higher grade reckoning the provisional service rendered by him in the Government and Aided schools along with the aided service following his regular appointment by Ext.P1. Necessary orders in this behalf shall be passed by the 2nd respondent as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.15273/2008 5