Mable Kunjachan and Bejoy Thomas v. State of Kerala and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P. V. Kunhikrishnan
- Judgment Date
- 2023-02-27
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petition is disposed of with directions: (1) The petitioner may file a representation before the 3rd respondent narrating the grievance within three weeks from receipt of a copy of this judgment; (2) On receipt, the 3rd respondent will consider and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the 5th respondent, and other affected parties, within two months; (3) All contentions are left open; (4) The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment along with the writ petition before the 3rd respondent for compliance.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed of with directions.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Mable Kunjachan
- Bejoy Thomas, UPSA, MAR Basil Higher Secondary School
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, General Education Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
- Director of Higher Secondary Education, Office of the Director of Higher Secondary Education, Housing Board Buildings, Sree Sankhya Nagar? (Santhi Nagar), Thiruvananthapuram
- Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education, Ernakulam
- District Educational Officer, Kothamangalam, Ernakulam
- The Manager, MAR Basil Higher Secondary School, Kothamangalam
- Addl. Headmistress, MAR Basil Higher Secondary School, Kothamangalam
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Elvin Peter
- • P. J. Ganesh
- • Sidharth Sudheer
- • Gouri Balagopal
Counsels for Respondents
- • S. Vinod Bhat
- • Anagha Lakshmy Raman
- • Greeshma Chandrika.R
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a writ petition (WP(C) 17706 of 2021) filed in the Kerala High Court by Mable Kunjachan and Bejoy Thomas (UPSA, MAR Basil Higher Secondary School, Kothamangalam) challenging the 5th respondent school's direct recruitment notifications for the post of HSST (Chemistry). The petition contends that the post should be filled by transfer under Rule 4, Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), applying a 1:3 ratio to arising vacancies; only one vacancy arose in 2020-21, so the vacancy must be filled by transfer with the petitioner eligible for appointment. The petitioner also cites the Supreme Court decision in Girija V.K. v. Reshma Parayil and Others (2019) 2 SCC 347 to support vacancy-based filling of the HSST post. Exts. P5 and P6, which call for direct recruitment, are argued to be contrary to this position. The respondents opposed direct recruitment on grounds that vacancies must be filled according to arising vacancies and cadre strength, with the 3rd respondent to decide entitlement to by-transfer after hearing. On 02.09.2021, the court stayed Exts. P5-P6 to the extent of direct recruitment, and directed the 3rd respondent to decide the petitioner's entitlement by transfer. The judgment disposes of the petition with directions: file a representation within three weeks; the 3rd respondent to consider and decide within two months after hearing; all contentions left open; petitioner to furnish a certified copy of the judgment for compliance.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that eligibility for appointment to HSST (Chemistry) exists by transfer due to arising vacancy. They rely on Rule 4, Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) implementing a 1:3 ratio for arising vacancies. They assert that only one vacancy arose in 2020-21 and that the vacancy must be filled by transfer; they cite Girija V.K. v. Reshma Parayil (2019) 2 SCC 347 to support vacancy-based filling of HSST posts. They seek quashing Exts. P5 and P6 (direct recruitment) to the extent they encroach on transfer entitlement, a mandamus to appoint by transfer, and a declaration that direct recruitment is not permissible for this post; they request such other proper reliefs.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argued that appointments should be made in light of arising vacancies and cadre strength, and that the 1:3 ratio under Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of KER applies. They noted the single vacancy in the relevant year and that the 5th respondent issued direct recruitment notifications (Exts. P5-P6), though the court stayed them to the extent of direct recruitment. They urged that the matter be decided by the 3rd respondent after hearing, with interim stay maintained until final orders, and that the petition be disposed of subject to the 3rd respondent’s decision.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Girija V.K. v. Reshma Parayil and others | 2019 (2) SCC 347 | Positive | Cited to support vacancy-based filling of HSST posts; the judgment recognizes filling by transfer based on arising vacancies and vacancy position. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Mable Kunjachan and Bejoy Thomas 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.