Meena Maniyoth v. State of Kerala and Others

**WP(C) NO. 12711 OF 2021** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 12711 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** MEENA MANIYOTH AGED 50 YEARS WIFE OF BALAN KUYYAMBALLI, AMRUTHALAYAM, PURAMERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 503, (FORMER UPSA, KADATHANAD RAJA'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PURAMERI, KOZHIKODE 673 503). BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED M.SAJJAD ## **RESPONDENTS :** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014. 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 001. 4 THE DSITRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 101. **WP(C) NO. 12711 OF 2021 2** 5 THE MANAGER, KADATHANAD RAJA'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PURAMERI, KOZHIKODE 673 503. BY ADV R.K.MURALEEDHARAN SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 12711 OF 2021** **3** ## JUDGMENT The petitioner states that she had two spells of approved service as UPSA in the years 1995 and 1999-2000 in the Kadathanad Raja’s Higher Secondary School, Purameri, an aided school managed by the 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, in recognition of her Rule 51A claim, she approached the 5th respondent and requested for reappointment. The petitioner contends that the request was rejected by the Manager. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P13 revision petition before the 1st respondent. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following directions:- - “(i) call for the records relating to Exhibit-P5 and set aside the original of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. - (ii) declare that the petitioner is a Rule 51A claimant in the 5th Respondent School. - (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 5th respondent to appoint the petitioner as UPSA and disburse the attendant benefits forthwith. - (iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P13 in the light of Exts.P6 to P12 with notice to the petitioner and within a time limit.” **WP(C) NO. 12711 OF 2021** **4** 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent. It is contended that the petitioner was in fact appointed as a leave substitute Teacher in the School for two spells for the period from 31.7.1995 to 29.9.1995 and from 15.12.1999 to 11.2.2000 as is evident from Exts.P1 and P4. During the academic year 2019-2020, one additional post of UPST and one additional post of Full Time Menial had arisen in the School due to an increase in students strength. Since there were no Rule 51A claimants or any other statutory claimant awaiting regular appointment, the Managing Committee decided to promote and appoint Sri. Ajeesh P.K., a clerk of the school who was qualified to be appointed as UPST. He was appointed with effect from 15.7.2019 against the additional post and Smt.Supriya E.K. in the resultant vacancy. It is also stated that a certain Smt. Syama Varma K.S was appointed as UPST with effect from 23.7.2019 against the promotion vacancy of Sri.Anil Kumar P.K. as HST (SS). The appointments were approved by the 4th respondent. 3. According to the 5th respondent, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, if one were to be brought under the category of qualified Teacher relieved on account of termination of vacancies, the amended Rule 7A(3) required to be satisfied. It is contended that a Teacher who was relieved from the service under Rules 49 and 53 of Chapter XIV A of the KER, is entitled to get **WP(C) NO. 12711 OF 2021** **5** preference for appointment under Rule 51A only if the Teacher has a minimum prescribed continuous service in an academic year as on the date of relief. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced. 5. The petitioner has no case that she had a minimum prescribed continuous service for one clear academic year. In Manager, VKNM Vocational Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala [2016 (1) KLT 489 SC], the Apex Court while reversing the Judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Jayasree v. State of Kerala [2014 (4) KLT 612] had occasion to rely on the principles laid down earlier in State of Kerala & Ors. v. Sneha Cherian and Anr. [2013 (1) KLT 755] wherein it was held that in view of the amendment to Rule 7A(3), in order for a qualified Teacher to claim preferential appointment under the category "on account of termination of vacancies" as mentioned in Rule 51A, earlier appointment in such vacancies should have been for a duration of one full academic year namely, from 1st June of the previous year till the last day of March of the subsequent year so as to satisfy Rule 7A(3) as amended. It was held as follows in paragraph No.21 of the Judgement: “21. Therefore, going by the interpretation of amended R.7A(3) read along with R.51A, if one were to be brought under the category of qualified teacher relieved on account of termination of vacancies, the **WP(C) NO. 12711 OF 2021** **6** amended R.7A(3) required to be satisfied, namely, such engagement was lasted for one clear academic year as stipulated under R.1 and R.2A of Chapter VII of the Kerala Education Rules. The 5th respondent not having satisfied the said requirement there was no scope to allow her to press her claim under R.51A for a preferential appointment. Having regard to the said legal consequence, the relief granted by the 1st respondent in order dated 26/11/2011 cannot be sustained and consequently the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment cannot also be sustained. The answers to the questions made by the Full Bench are also liable to be set aside and in its place, it must be held that the interpretation made by this Court in Sneha Cheriyan (supra) would alone prevail.” 6. In Sneha Cherian (supra) it was emphatically held that a Teacher, who was relieved from service under Rule 49 and Rule 53 of Chapter XIV A of the KER, is entitled to get preference for appointment under Rule 51A only if the Teacher has a minimum prescribed continuous service in an academic year as on the date of relief. 7. In that view of the matter, I find that no purpose would be served in directing the respondents to consider the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner. The reliance placed by the petitioner on certain orders passed by the Government cannot come to her rescue as this Court will not be justified in issuing a futile writ to perpetuate an illegality. **WP(C) NO. 12711 OF 2021** **7** In that view of the matter, I am not persuaded to grant the relief sought for. This petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE ps/18/11/2021 **WP(C) NO. 12711 OF 2021 8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12711/2021** PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : - EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 31.07.1995 AND APPROVAL THEREON. - EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE HEADMISTRESS OF THE SCHOOL DATED 29.9.1995. - EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 15.12.1999 AND APPROVAL THEREON. - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 11.02.2000 ISSUED BY THE HEADMISTRESS OF THE SCHOOL. - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B6/6143/2019/K. DIS. DATED 20.03.2020 OF THE DEO, VADAKARA. - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.4/2021/G.EDN. DATED 06.02.2021 OF THE GOVERNMENT. - EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.) NO. 1817/2021/G.EDN. DATED 20.02.2021 OF THE GOVERNMENT. - EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (RT.) NO. 1871/2021/G.EDN. DATED 23.02.2021 OF THE GOVT. - EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO. 1876/2021/G.EDN. DATED 23.02.2021 OF THE GOVT. **WP(C) NO. 12711 OF 2021** **9** EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 37431/J3/2000/G.EDN. DATED 9TH OCTOBER 2000 OF THE GOVT. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (P) NO. 31/2006/GE DATED 19TH JANUARY 2006 OF THE GOVT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (RT) NO. 486/2020/G.EDN. DATED 24.01.2020 OF THE GOVT. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FIELD BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 09.04.2021 (WITHOUT EXHIBIT). RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL