High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of; quashing of specifie...

Mary Jameela Rani v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 26938 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Judgment Date
2022-08-22
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition disposed of. Ext.P3, Ext.P8, Ext.P9 and Ext.P11 are quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P10 (revision petition) with explicit reference to Rule 6(4)(c) of Chapter XXIII KER and to pass fresh orders within two months, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment to the competent respondent to ensure compliance.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of; quashing of specified orders and directions to reconsider under Rule 6(4)(c) within two months; compliance with judgment to be ensured by the petitioner.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Mary Jameela Rani

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Director of General Education
  • Deputy Director of Education, Kottayam
  • District Educational Officer, Kottayam
  • Corporate Manager, Corporate Educational Agency of Schools, Diocese of Vijaya puram, Kottayam -686 001.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M.A.Fayaz
  • • M.Vishnupriya
  • • C.B.Abhinava

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the refusal by the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Sewing Teacher at St. Joseph Convent Girls High School, Kottayam, with effect from 01.06.2017. The petitioner asserts that a Sewing Teacher post existed in the school, evidenced by staff fixation orders for 2017-2018 and earlier years, and that the Manager had earmarked a post for a Sewing Teacher while seeking a qualified incumbent from the authorities. A Government Order (G.O. P. No. 4/2021/G.Edn) dated 06.02.2021 prompted a fresh proposal, but the 4th respondent rejected it on the ground that Jeena Jose, who was working as a Specialist Teacher, was protected and continued on a clubbing arrangement following a past reduction of the Art post in 2015-2016. The 2nd respondent (Director of General Education) and the 3rd respondent (DEO) upheld Exts. P3, P8, P9 and P11, thereby rejecting the request. The petitioner relies on Rule 6(4)(c) of Chapter XXIII KER, which provides for one full-time Sewing Teacher post if there are not less than 200 girls in the High School, and argues that a post existed and could be sanctioned even if a post of Art Teacher co-existed, provided the requisite girl strength is met. The Court observes that the scope of Rule 6(4)(c) was not properly considered and issues directions to quash the challenged orders and re-consider the revision petition under Rule 6(4)(c) within two months, ensuring compliance with this judgment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 6(4)(c) of Chapter XXIII KERSub Rule 4(c) of Rule 6 of Chapter XXIII KER

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.P2 staff fixation orders and other records show a standing Sewing Teacher post in St. Joseph’s CGHS, Kottayam, and that the Manager had reserved a post for a Sewing Teacher after ensuring no protected teacher was deputed. Relying on Rule 6(4)(c) of Chapter XXIII KER, which mandates one full‑time Sewing Teacher post if not less than 200 girls are in the High School, the petitioner asserts that a post existed and could be sanctioned even if a post of Art Teacher coexisted; the post was to be approved from 01.06.2017 and salary arrears claimed. The petitioner seeks reliefs including mandamus to approve the appointment and to pay salary from that date, submitting that the authorities did not properly apply the rule and ignored protection concerns surrounding the existing staff.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents justify the rejection on the grounds that no post of Sewing Teacher is presently available; Jeena Jose’s protection and the clubbing arrangement, following the 2015-16 post reductions, prevented creation of a full-time Sewing Teacher post. They contend that Exts. P3, P8, P9 and P11 reflect proper consideration and that Rule 6(4)(c) could not be invoked without a sanctioned post. The Government Pleader submits that the governing rules and the G.O. 4/2021 G.Edn were properly followed and that a fresh, compliant proposal must be considered by the 2nd respondent (Director of General Education).

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 Mary Jameela Rani 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 MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 22 [ ND ] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1944 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 26938 OF 2022 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` MARY JAMEELA RANI AGED 47 YEARS SEWING TEACHER, ST.JOSEPH CONVENT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, KOTTAYAM- 686 001, RESIDING AT VELLARAMKALYIL HOUSE, PATTITHANAM, ETTUMANNOOR-686631. BY ADVS. M.A.FAYAZ M.VISHNUPRIYA C.B.ABHINAVA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. 3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM, O/O THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM- 686 001. 4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM O/O THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 5 CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF SCHOOLS, DIOCESE OF VIJAYAPURAM, VIJAYAPURAM BISHOP HOUSE, KOTTAYAM -686 001. SMT NISHA BOSE SR GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 26938 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed challenging the refusal on the part of the respondents in granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Sewing Teacher with effect from 01.06.2017. ## 2. Brief facts are as under: The petitioner states that she was appointed as Sewing Teacher in the St. Joseph Convent Girls High School, Kottayam, with effect from 1.6.2017 on the basis of Ext.P1 order. Placing reliance on Exhibit P2 Staff Fixation Order for the academic year 2017-2018, it is stated that the post of Sewing Teacher was available in the school during 2016-2017 as well as 2017-2018. However, the proposal submitted for approval was rejected on the ground that no protected teacher was appointed in the school. The petitioner contends that the Manager had set apart a post of LPST for appointing a protected teacher and had requested the official respondents to allot a qualified teacher but no teacher was deputed. In the said circumstances, an appeal was preferred before the 3rd respondent but no orders were passed. While so, the Government came out with G.O.(P) No. 4/2021/G.Edn. dated 6.02.2021 and in the said circumstances, the Manager submitted a fresh proposal before the 4th respondent. The said proposal was rejected on the ground that one Jeena Jose, who was working as a Specialist Teacher, was allowed to continue on clubbing arrangement consequent to the reduction of the post of an Art Teacher in the academic year 2015-2016 and she was ``` WP(C) NO. 26938 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` allowed to continue in the same school due to her eligibility for protection. The 4th respondent took the view that no post of Specialist Teacher (Sewing Teacher) is therefore available to accommodate the petitioner in the school. The proposal was accordingly rejected by Ext.P8 order. Though the matter was taken in appeal as well as in revision before the 1st respondent, the same stands rejected by Ext.P9 and P11 orders. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Sewing Teacher at St.Joseph CGHS Kottayam w.e.f01.06.2017. ii. To call for the records leading to the issuance of Exts.P3, P8, P9 and P11 orders of respondents 4, 3 and 2 respectively and set aside the same by issuing a Writ of certiorari. iii. To declare that in view of the stipulation in Sub Rule 4 © of Rule 6 of Chapter XXIII KER, petitioner's appointment as Sewing Teacher at St.Joseph's CGHS Kottayam is liable to be approved on regular pay scale w.e.f. 01.06.2017. iv. In view of the 5th respondent Manager setting apart a post for accommodating a protected teacher as evident by Ext. P4 petitioner's appointment as Sewing Teacher w.e.f. 01.06.2017 is liable to be approved. v. To declare that the continuance of a Drawing Teacher on clubbing arrangement at St.Joseph CGHS Kottayam is not a bar in approving the appointment of the petitioner who was appointed as Sewing Teacher in the light of Sub Rule 4(c) of Rule 6 of Chapter XXIII KER. vi. To direct the 4th respondent to sanction and disburse salary due to the petitioner in the post of Sewing Teacher w.e.f. 01.06.2017.” ``` WP(C) NO. 26938 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` 3. Sri. M.A.Fayaz, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that it would be evident from Ext.P2 staff fixation order that even when Smt. Jeena Joseph was working on a clubbing arrangement, there was an established post of Sewing Teacher at the St. Joseph Convent Girls High School, Kottayam. The learned counsel would also refer to Exts.P12 and P13 staff fixation orders for the academic years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 and also the continuance of the previous staff fixation orders till 2015- 2016 and it is urged that the post of Sewing Teacher was always available. The learned counsel would then refer to Rule 6(4)(c) of Chapter XXIII of the KER which deals with the appointment of Specialist Teachers in the High School section and argued that a High School having more than 200 girl students is entitled to have a post of Sewing Teacher, if there is no other craft teacher. Highlighting the fact that there are no other craft teachers at St. Joseph Convent Girls High School, Kottayam, it is argued that the petitioner is entitled to get her appointment approved from 01.06.2017 onwards. 4. I have heard the learned Government Pleader who justified the stand taken by the respondents. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned counsel, it would be apposite to quote Rule 6(4)(c) of Chapter XXIII of the KER. Rule 6(4)(c) of Chapter XXIII of the KER “one full time post of *[sewing teacher], if there is no craft Teacher provided that there are not less than 200 girls in High School Classes: ``` WP(C) NO. 26938 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` Provided that the existing part time post of Physical Education, drawing, Music sewing or Needle-work shall not be converted into full time posts unless the incumbents holding the posts are fully qualified to hold the full time posts: [provided further that no full-time post of specialist teacher under any category mentioned above shall be sanctioned, if the number of periods of work per week in concerned subject is less than 5 provided also that if there is already a post of Drawing TEacher under the ARt Group the second post n the Art Group, namely a post of Music Teacher or a post in the Craft Group will be sanctioned only when the periods under each group exceeds 25 periods per week” 6. Going by the said rule, there has to be one Full Time Post of Sewing Teacher, if there is no craft teacher, provided that there are not less than 200 girl students in High School classes. Since a post of sewing teacher was available in the school as is evident from Ext.P2, P12 and P13, appears to be merit in the submission that in view of Rule 6(4)(c), a post of Sewing Teacher can be sanctioned even if there is a post of Art Teacher subject to the rider that there are more than 200 girls in the High School Section. On going through Exts.P3, P8, P9 and P11 orders, I find that the scope and impact of Rule 6(4)(c) was not considered by the respondents while rejecting the proposal for approval of the appointment of the petitioner. I am of the view that necessary directions can be issued to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter by adverting to Rule 6(4)(c) of Chapter XXIII of the KER. ``` WP(C) NO. 26938 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` 7. In view of the discussion above, the following directions are issued: - a) Ext.P3, P8, P9 and P11 orders will stand quashed. b) There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P10 revision petition by specifically adverting to Rule 6(4)(c) of Chapter XXIII of the KER and pass fresh orders in accordance with law, in any event, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. c) The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the competent among respondents to ensure compliance. This writ petition is disposed of. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **JUDGE** ``` avs ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 26938 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26938/2022`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** |`Exhibit P1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE`| |---|---| ||`5TH RESPONDENT DATED 01.06.2017.`| |`Exhibit P2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER IN RESPECT`| ||`OF THE SCHOOL ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE`| ||`ORDER NO.D.DIS/B4/9768/2017 DATED 22.12.2017.`| |`Exhibit P3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION VIDE LETTER`| ||`NO.B4/939/2019/L. DIS DATED 22.06.2019 ISSUED BY`| ||`THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`| |`Exhibit P4`|`TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.18/2019 DATED 19.03.2019 AND`| ||`AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT`| ||`CORPORATE MANAGER DATED 08.03.2021.`| |`Exhibit P5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. NO.J2/57/2019/G.EDN`| ||`DATED 08.03.2019.`| |`Exhibit P6`|`TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT`| ||`CORPORATE MANAGER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED`| ||`28.12.2019.`| |`Exhibit P7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P)NO.4/ 2021/G.EDN DATED`| ||`06.02.2021.`| |`Exhibit P8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4/20938/2021/K.DIS`| ||`DATED 30.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`| |`Exhibit P9`|`TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B3/215113/2021 DATED`| ||`13.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT .`| |`Exhibit P10`|`TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DATED NIL SUBMITTED`| ||`BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.`| |`Exhibit P11`|`TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ET2/ 235650/2022 DATED`| ||`15.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`| |`Exhibit P12`|`TRUE COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER IN RESPECT OF`| ||`ST.JOSEPH'S CGHS ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR`| ||`THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2018-19 VIDE ORDER`| ||`NO.D.DIS/B4/4398/2018 DATED 03.07.2018.`| ``` WP(C) NO. 26938 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` ``` Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO.D.DIS/B4/45299/2019 DATED 29.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2019-20. ```