ANJANA S. v. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (T) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001; DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001; REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KOTTAYAM-686001; CORPORATE MANAGER, S.N.D.S. TRUST, SIVAGIRI MUTT, VARKALA-695101

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 22337 OF 2018`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` ANJANA S., AGED 51 YEARS ``` ``` PRINCIPAL(IN CHARGE), A.V.H.S KURICHI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** |**`1`**|**`SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT`**| |---|---| ||**`GENERAL EDUCATION(T) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,`**| ||**`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.`**| |**`2`**|**`DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION`**| ||**`OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY`**| ||**`EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.`**| |**`3`**|**`REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY`**| ||**`EDUCATION`**| ||**`OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KOTTAYAM-`**| ||**`686001.`**| |**`4`**|**`CORPORATE MANAGER`**| ||**`S.N.D.S TRUST, SIVAGIRI MUTT, VARKALA-695101.`**| ||**`BY ADVS.`**| ||**`M.V.THAMBAN`**| ||**`R.REJI`**| ||**`ARUN BOSE`**| ||**`THARA THAMBAN`**| ||**`B.BIPIN`**| ||**`SUNEESH KUMAR R.`**| ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` ``` SR GP SRI BIMAL K NATH ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ``` ``` ON 09.04.2024, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WPC 22337/2018 2 ## `J U D G M E N T` ``` The petitioner while working as the Principal- in-charge of AVHS Kurichi, Kottayam has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: ``` ``` “a.Call for the records leading to the passing of Exhibit-P7 by the first respondent and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order. ``` ``` b.Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ direction or order directing respondents 1 to 3 to declare that students strength during the academic year 2007-2008 is sufficient for upgrading the post of H.S.S.T (Junior) Malayalam to H.S.S.T Malayalam and modify the staff fixation order accordingly within a time limit fixed by this Hon’ble Court.” ``` ``` 2.By Ext.P1 order, the services of the petitioner was regularised as H.S.S.T (Junior) Malayalam with effect from 30.5.2007 to 14.7.2007. According to the petitioner, the admitted strength of students for Malayalam in standard XI in the ``` WPC 22337/2018 3 ``` first year of Plus Two course is 121, for which three batches with 18 periods of workload can be allowed. Therefore, according to the petitioner, one post of H.S.S.T is admissible. But only a post of Junior H.S.S.T was sanctioned. By Ext.P2 appeal, the Corporate Manager brought to the notice of the Director of Higher Secondary Education the said discrepancy. By Ext.P3, a staff fixation order was issued on 25.5.2010 by sanctioning various posts, after taking notice of the student strength. The petitioner contends that the student strength in Ext.P3 staff fixation order for the Malayalam division is noticed as 121. By Ext.P4, the appeal of the Corporate Manager was dismissed finding that there is only one student in excess of 120. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 revision petition before the 1[st] respondent, which was also rejected by Ext.P7 order. It is challenging Ext.P7 that the petitioner has approached this Court. ``` ``` 3.The 3[rd] respondent has filed a counter ``` WPC 22337/2018 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` affidavit, in which it is specifically mentioned that it was not prudent to recommend the upgradation of H.S.S.T (Junior) Malayalam post to H.S.S.T merely on the strength of one student. Though the Manager appointed the petitioner as the Principal w.e.f 30.5.2007 the same was rejected for the reason that it was done even before sanctioning of the post of H.S.S.T/H.S.S.T Junior. ``` ``` 4.The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit in which the petitioner has produced Exts.P8, P9 and P10 orders, wherein the respondents are stated to have sanctioned a post of H.S.S.T based on the student strength being taken as 50, instead of 60 as done in this case. ``` ``` 5.I have heard Sri.M.Balagovindan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Bimal K.Nath, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. ``` ``` 6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that based on Ext.P5 Government Order, it is possible that one additional division to the language classes over ``` WPC 22337/2018 5 ``` 50 students with a margin of 10 students with teachers in all Higher Secondary Schools in the State, wherever it is necessary, to be sanctioned. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since student strength is admittedly 121, if a division of 50 students each is sanctioned, then there will be one additional division with a margin of more than 10 students and, therefore, the staff fixation orders, which are now standing in the way of the approval of the petitioner as Principal could be revisited. He also further relies on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Shuja Baby v. State of Kerala [2008 (1) KLT 230]. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P7 order is liable to be set aside and the respondents are liable to be directed for upgrading the post of H.S.S.T (Junior) to H.S.S.T and modify the staff fixation order accordingly. ``` ``` 7.On the other hand, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would contend that Ext.P7 order is perfectly ``` WPC 22337/2018 6 ``` legal. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, the petitioner was appointed in the post of Principal even before the post of Junior H.S.S.T was sanctioned in the school and the same was irregular and was reported to the Director. Later, the post was upgraded with effect from 15.7.2008 to H.S.S.T Malayalam and the period from 30.5.2007 to 14.7.2007 was regularised as has now been done under Ext.P7. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Government Pleader, the orders do not require any interference at the hands of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ``` ``` 8.When the rival submissions raised across the bar were considered by this Court, especially with regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the principles laid down by the learned Single Judge inShuja Baby (supra), that the staff fixation order is liable to be revisited based on the principles laid down in the said decision, this Court takes note of the fact that the said ``` WPC 22337/2018 7 ``` decision has been overruled by a Larger Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Seema [2015 (1) KLT 68]. In the light of the above, this Court is not able to accept the proposition raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the judgment inShuja Baby (supra) and accordingly, the said contention is liable to be rejected. ``` ``` 9.Insofar as the challenge to Ext.P7 is concerned, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the appointment of the petitioner was made even before a post in H.S.S.T Junior Malayalam was sanctioned. What has now been done under Ext.P7 is regularisation of the period of appointment of the petitioner from 30.5.2007 to 14.7.2007. It is to be noted that the staff fixation orders were issued as early as on 25.5.2010. It does not appear from records and the pleading produced before this Court that the Corporate Manager, who is the 4[th] respondent, had taken appropriate proceedings to question the same at appropriate time. At any rate, at this point of time, after a lapse of 14 years, the reason ``` WPC 22337/2018 8 ``` stated in the writ petition does not impel this Court to revisit the orders issued by the Authorities fixing the staff strength in the school under the 4[th] respondent Corporate Manager. Admittedly, the petitioner’s appointment was at the time when there was no sanctioned post of H.S.S.T Junior. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit of the presence of 121 students in the Malayalam subject at that point of time and seek for a writ of mandamus to the respondents 1 to 3 to issue revised staff fixation orders and sanction a post of H.S.S.T Malayalam with effect from 2007. ``` ``` In the result, the writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. No order as to costs. ``` ``` Sd/- EASWARAN S. JUDGE ``` ``` jg ``` WPC 22337/2018 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22337/2018`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 3-6-2017 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE CORPORATE MANAGER TO THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DATED 22-9-2014. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATED 25-05-2010. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DATED 21-10-2014 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE GO 1341/98 G EDN. DATED 28-03-1998. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 24-09-2016. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 17-08-2017. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO,ACD.B5-19898/2001/HSE DATED 12/05/2006 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ACD.B5-19898/HSE/2001 DATED 19.02.2007. EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A2/6151/RDD/HSE/EKM/ 10 DATED 25.05.2010 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF APPOINTMENT MADE BY THE MANAGER DATED 17.05.2007 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P12TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25.12.2019 (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION) EXHIBIT P13TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.1.2020 (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION) ``` WPC 22337/2018 10 ## **`RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT R3(a)TRUE COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE YEARS 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ``` ``` EXHIBIT R3(b)TRUE COPY OF LETTER FROM DIRECTOR NO.ACD.B4/26209/HSE/2015 DATED 11.5.2017. EXHIBIT R3(c)TRUECOPYOFOFFICEORDER NO.A3/7208/RDD.HSE/2014 DATED 3.6.2017. EXHIBIT R3(d)TRUE COPY OF REJECTION ORDER DATED 21.10.2014. ```