High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition partly allowed; Ext.P7’s denial o...

Joseph M. C. v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 18469 of 2012 (G)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Hon. Anu Sivaraman
Judgment Date
2016-11-18
Court Decision / Holding
Ext.P7 order, to the extent it denies retrospective operation to the petitioner’s promotion, is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to receive the difference of salary and allowances consequent to promotion to the post of HSA (Physical Science) with effect from 05.06.2000. Pay and allowances should be calculated and paid within three months from receipt of this judgment. The educational authorities may pursue action against the manager; that claim is left open.
Final Disposition
Writ petition partly allowed; Ext.P7’s denial of retrospective operation set aside; petitioner entitled to arrears from 05.06.2000; action against manager left open.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Joseph M. C.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, General Education (H) Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001; Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram-695001; District Educational Officer, Thiruvananthapuram-695001; Manager, Salvation Army Higher Secondary School, Kawadiyar P.O. Thiruvananthapuram-695003

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • O. V. Radhakrishnan (Sr.)
  • • K. Radhamani Amma
  • • Antony Mukkath
  • • K. Ramachandran (Thykoodeam)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • R1-R3: Smt. Raji T. Bhaskar (Senior Government Pleader)
  • • R4: K. P. Sujesh Kumar (Adv.)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Joseph M. C., a government school teacher, challenged Ext.P7, a Government Order in revision that denied him arrears for a notional promotion to the post of Headmaster (HSA) in Physical Science, arising from a vacancy on 05.06.2000. The petitioner contended that he was fully qualified for appointment under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A, KER, and that the selection of a fresh candidate against the vacancy could not override a claimant under Rule 43, particularly since Rosamma Thomas, a protected teacher, blocked recall; Ext.P5 held the protected teacher must be recalled, and the fresh appointment was not approved. The court, after hearing, noted that the Government ultimately found the vacancy could not be filled by recalling a protected teacher because it would violate the Minimum Subject Requirement. It concluded that the petitioner was legally entitled to be appointed against that vacancy and to pay and allowances for the post as if promoted from 05.06.2000, though Ext.P7 had denied back arrears. The court allowed the petition in part: Ext.P7's denial of retrospective operation was set aside, and the petitioner was to be paid the difference in salary and allowances within three months, with the possibility of action against the manager to be pursued separately. The decision emphasizes that notional promotion and its monetary consequences are to be considered in accordance with law.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A, Kerala Education Rules (KER)Kerala Education Rules (KER) Chapter XIV A

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that his claim for appointment against the vacancy of HSA (Physical Science) which fell vacant on 05.06.2000 was legally enforceable under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A KER. He argues that the appointment of a fresh hand against the post was unjustified given the protected status of Rosamma Thomas and that the Government’s later Ext.P7 finding that the vacancy could not be filled by recalling a protected teacher supports his entitlement, including pay and allowances on notional promotion from 05.06.2000. The petitioner also asserts that the 2000 GO on arrears for notional promotion applies since there was no delay in making his claim.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Ext.P7’s stance reflects the Government’s position that the post should not backfill with a recalled protected teacher and that the GO dated 12.07.2000 on arrears of salary for notional promotion has no application here. They argue that appointment actions were correctly taken, and double-payment concerns exist since Rosamma Thomas was entitled to salary as a protected teacher. They also contend that the petitioner did not actually work against the post and that any back arrears would be unjustified.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Union of India and others v. K. V. Jankiraman and others1991 (4) SCC 109Mentioned OnlyCited by petitioner as a persuasive authority on monetary benefits of notional promotion; court does not rely on it as decisive for its ruling.
State of Kerala and others v. E. K. Bhaskaran Pillai2007 (6) SCC 524Mentioned OnlyCited as supportive authority; not expressly adopted or distinguished in the judgment.
G. Narayana Pillai v. Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction and Others1972 KLJ 761Mentioned OnlyCited in argument; no explicit treatment by the court in this decision.
Rajappan Nair v. State of Kerala & others1984 KLT 141 (DB)Mentioned OnlyCited as precedent; no explicit application in the judgment.
Valsala Kumari Devi v. State of Kerala2011 (3) KLT 549Mentioned OnlyCited in the petitioner’s framing of claims; not a decisive influence on the court’s order.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Joseph M. C. v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/27TH KARTHIKA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 18469 of 2012 (G)** ## **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **-----------** ## **JOSEPH.M.C,** **S/O.LATE CHACKO,AGED 50 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE), SALVATION ARMY HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KAWADIYAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003, RESIDING AT PALLIKKUNNEL HOUSE, KEEZHOOR P.O, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, PIN-686605.** **BY ADVS.SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN (THYKOODAM)** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **--------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION (H) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **4. MANAGER, SALVATION ARMY HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KAWADIYAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.** **R1-R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT RAJI T BHASKAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **K.V.** ## **WPC 18469 OF 2012:** ## **------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS: -----------------------** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED 24-1-1986.** **EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED.CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER OF THE GANDHIJI UNIVERSITY DATED 24-11-1992. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF-FIXATION ORDER NO.D.DIS/B54156/2000 DATED 26-8-2000 OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 3-2-2001 OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN GO(RT)NO.1533/2001/G.EDN. DATED 11-4-2001 OF THE ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8-10-2009 IN OP 16769/2001 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.3307/2010/G.EDN. DATED 27-7-2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO.1016/2000/FIN DATED 12-7-2000 OF 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11-10-2010 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12-12-2011 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **----------------------** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **K.V.** ## ANU SIVARAMAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18469 of 2012 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 18th day of November, 2016 ## JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order passed by the Government in revision to the limited extent it denies the benefits of arrears of salary and allowances on account of his notional promotion as HSA (Physical Science) with effect from 05.06.2000. The petitioner was appointed as LPSA in the 4th respondent's school with effect from 02.06.1997. A vacancy of HSA (Physical Science) arose in the school on 05.06.2000 on the promotion of HSA (Physical Science) as Headmaster. The petitioner was fully qualified for appointment against the said post under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A, KER. However, the 4th respondent appointed one Sonia T.Danial, a fresh hand, against the vacancy of HSA (Physical Science). The petitioner had raised his claim for promotion against the said vacancy immediately on coming to know of the said appointment. It appears that the appointment of Sonia T.Danial was not W.P.(C) No.18469 of 2012 -2- approved on the ground that one Smt.Rosamma Thomas, HSA (Physical Science), was continuing on orders of protection. The said Sonia T.Danial preferred revision before the Government. By Ext.P5 order dated 11.04.2001, the Government considered the contentions raised by Smt.Sonia T.Danial as well as Smt.Rosamma Thomas, and observed that Smt.Rosamma Thomas HSA (Social Science) was a protected teacher and had to be recalled to fill up the post of HSA (Physical Science). It was found that the fresh hand had no claim for continuance since the post in question had to be filled up by accommodating a protected teacher. It was also found that a fresh hand had no locus standi to challenge the adjustment, as the preferential claim of the Rule 43 claimant was overlooked in her appointment. 2. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court filing O.P.No.16769/2001. By judgment dated 08.10.2009, the writ petition was disposed of, quashing Ext.P5 order to the extent that it denies relief to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18469 of 2012 -3- respect of his claim for promotion under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A KER as HSA (Physical Science), and directing the reconsideration of the matter. Ext.P7 order was thereafter passed on 27.07.2010 upholding the petitioner's claim for promotion under Rule 43 Chapter XIV A KER. However, it was stated that the petitioner would be notionally promoted as HSA (Physical Science) with effect from 05.06.2000 onwards, without any back arrears of his notional promotion as stipulated in Government Order dated 12.07.2000. 3. Government Order dated 12.07.2000 is produced as Ext.P8 in this writ petition. It is argued that the said Government Order which relates to arrears of salary in case of notional promotion has no application in the instant case as the petitioner's claim for appointment against the post which fell vacant on 05.06.2000 had been found by the Government in Ext.P7 order. Since the approval of appointment is to take effect from the date of appointment, and since there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in making his claim for W.P.(C) No.18469 of 2012 -4- appointment under Rule 43, it is contended that the denial of back arrears to the petitioner is completely unjustified. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court reported in Union of India and others v. K.V.Jankiraman and others [1991 (4) SCC 109], State of Kerala and others v. E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai [2007 (6) SCC 524], G.Narayana Pillai v. Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction and Others [1972 KLJ 761], Rajappan Nair v. State of Kerala & others [1984 KLT 141 (DB)] and Valsala Kumari Devi v. State of Kerala [2011 (3) KLT 549] to contend that promotion was wrongly denied to an incumbent, and he would be entitled monetary benefits of such promotion. 2. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent, contending that Smt.Rosmma Thomas had W.P.(C) No.18469 of 2012 -5- actually worked against the post of HSA (Physical Science) from 05.06.2000 and had been paid salary. It is further stated that payment of salary to the petitioner would amount to double payment, and back arrears are not admissible since the petitioner had not actually worked against the post of HSA (Physical Science). 4. I have considered the contentions raised in detail. The petitioner had raised his claim for appointment to the vacant post of HSA (Physical Science) which fell vacant on 05.06.2000. The petitioner had also been seeking the benefits of appointment against the said post. However, the manager had appointed a fresh hand against the said post. The said appointment was not approved by the educational authorities on the ground that a HSA (Social Science) was remaining under orders of protection. By Ext.P7 order of the Government, it has now been found by the Government itself that the post which fell vacant on 05.06.2000, being that of HSA (Physical Science), it could not have been filled up by recalling the HSA W.P.(C) No.18469 of 2012 -6- (Social Science) since it would be in violation of the Minimum Subject Requirement. In the above view of the matter, it has been found that the petitioner was legally entitled to be appointed against the vacancy of HSA (Physical Science) which arose on 05.06.2000. The further contention with regard to the double payment would also not hold good in this case, in view of the fact that Smt.Rosamma Thomas was already a protected hand and would have had to be paid her entire salary and allowances, even if she had not been recalled to work in the school. In the above view of the matter, I am of the definite opinion that the finding contained in Ext.P7 to the effect that the petitioner was the rightful claimant to be appointed as HSA (Physical Science) in the vacancy which arose on 05.06.2000, should lead to his entitlement to pay and allowances in the promoted post as well. Ext.P7 order, to the extent it denies retrospective operation to the promotion of the petitioner is set aside. It is directed that the petitioner shall be paid the W.P.(C) No.18469 of 2012 -7- difference of salary and allowances consequent to his promotion to the post of HSA (Physical Science) with effect from 05.06.2000. The pay and allowances shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The learned Government Pleader submits that the educational authorities should be permitted to proceed against the manager. The said claim is left open. Writ petition is ordered accordingly. ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE vs