P. Radhamani v. State of Kerala and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** # **MONDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 31554 OF 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** **P.RADHAMANI, AGED 53 YEARS, HSST(JR), H.S.S. THIRUVAMPADY, PAZHAVEEDU P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 009.** ## **BY ADV PAULSON THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BYTHE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT , GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.** - **3 REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.** - **4 MANAGER, H.S.S. THIRUVAMPADY, PAZHAVEEDU P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 009.** **BY SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 31554/19 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner says that she was appointed as a Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) [HSST (Jr)] on 25.07.2001, in the services of the 'H.S.S., Thivampady'; and that she has been forced to approach this Court impugning Ext.P9 order of the 2nd respondent-Director of General Education (DGE), declining her the benefit of Ext.P3 Government Order, dated 20.11.2004, which in effect denied the claim for full-time benefits. 2. The petitioner says that Ext.P3 order was issued specifically to grant full-time benefits to all HSST Juniors, who were appointed 'by Transfer' from among High School Teachers, Upper Primary School Teachers and Lower Primary School Teachers during the period between 13.05.1998 and 12.11.2001, as was offered to the transferees in the Government School through Ext.P12 Government Order, dated 13.05.1998. She asserts that even WPC 31554/19 3 though, through Ext.P3, all Higher Secondary School Teachers in the school were given full-time status during the period between 07.12.1999 and 12.11.2001 - during when matters were pending before the Honourable Supreme Court (commonly referred to as the 'Dollichan' case) and the notification of the Special Rules - she has been singled out to be denied this benefit through Ext.P9 proceedings of the 2nd respondent, merely saying that her appointment was not within the statutorily fixed 25% quota from among the High School Teachers. 3. The petitioner contends that Ext.P9 is completely without basis because it has upset the settled positions in law, particularly that appointments between 07.12.1999 and 12.11.2001 need not have complied with the statutory ratio because the matter was pending before the Honourable Supreme Court and the Special Rules had not been published until latter date. She, WPC 31554/19 4 therefore, prays that Ext.P9 be set aside and the competent educational Authorities be directed to grant her the benefit of Full-Time Higher Secondary School Teacher as per Ext.P3, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 4. I have heard Sri.Paulson Thomas – learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.M.Manoj – learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 5. Sri.Paulson Thomas – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client has been agitating for the benefits of Full-Time status for the last more than a decade; and that she had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P(C)No.30518/2010, which was allowed by Ext.P8 judgment, in fact, setting aside the earlier Exts.P4 and P7 orders. He then pointed out that in Ext.P8 judgment, there were specific observations by this Court relating to the entitlement of the petitioner and consequently, the Director of WPC 31554/19 5 Higher Secondary School Education was directed to issue orders strictly in terms thereof. He argued that in spite of this, the Director has now issued Ext.P9 order virtually, without adverting to any of the observations of this Court and even without considering the impact of Ext.P3, especially when the legal issues were pending resolution before the Honourable Supreme Court. He thus reiteratingly prayed that said order be set aside. 6. Sri.P.M.Manoj – learned Senior Government Pleader, initially sought time to file counter pleadings in this case; but then argued that Ext.P9 is irreproachable, since the Joint Director of Higher Secondary Education has correctly found that petitioner was appointed as a Higher Secondary School Teacher (Jr) in excess of the 25% quota, which is statutorily prescribed for such appointments. He, therefore, argued that Ext.P9 cannot be found fault with, particularly when, in Ext.P8, this Court had directed the said Authority WPC 31554/19 6 to consider the petitioner's claim in terms of law and after affording her an opportunity of being heard, which has been done. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed. 7. I have examined the afore submissions and have gone through the various materials available on record. 8. It is virtually uncontested that Ext.P3 Government Order dated 20.11.2004 was issued on account of the imbroglio faced by the Education Department during the period when the matters were pending before the Honourable Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court delivered the judgment in **M.M.Dollichan and Others v. State of Kerala** **(2001(1)SCC 151)** on 14.11.2000; while the petitioner was appointed on 25.07.2001. However, what is pertinent in this case is that the Special Rules came into force only on 12.11.2001 and that the petitioner's appointment was pursuant to **Dollichan** (supra). WPC 31554/19 7 9. Obviously, therefore, it fails comprehension as to how the Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education can now maintain that merely because the petitioner's appointment was excess of 25% of the statutory quota, she cannot be granted the benefit of Full-Time status. I am certainly of the view that the Authority did not consider the impact of **Dollichan** (supra) properly, nor the fact that the Special Rules came into force only on 12.11.2001, which was prior to the appointment of the petitioner. Since the petitioner has been appointed following the directions in **Dollichan** (supra), her case could not have been rejected through Ext.P9 order, in the manner it has been done now. 10. In the afore circumstances, I have no doubt that Ext.P9 cannot remain in force and that it deserves to be set aside. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P9 is set aside; with a consequential WPC 31554/19 direction to the 2nd respondent-DGE to reconsider the matter strictly adverting to the observations herein and in Ext.P8 judgment, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. **Sd/-** RR **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** WPC 31554/19 9 ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31554/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURE: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER DATED 25-08-2003 OF THE PETITIONER AS HSST (JR.) MATHS. EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER DATED 10-03-2008 OF THE PETITIONER AS HSST (JR.) MATHS. - EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT.) NO. 2278/2008/G.EDN. DATED 18-06-2008. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO. 351/2004/G.EDN. DATED 20-11-2004. - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR DATED 29-06-2009. - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 2507-2009. - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 24195/2009 DATED 24-08-2009. - EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT.) NO. 3268/2010/G.EDN. DATED 26-07-2010. - EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 30518/2010 DATED 07-04-2017. - EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-09-2017 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CONTEMPT CASE NO. 1539/2018 DATED 13-11-2018. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE WPC 31554/19 10 SUPREME COURT DATED 07-12-1999 IN DOLLICHAN'S CASE. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO. 162/1998/G.EDN. DATED 13-05-1998. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO. 91/2007/G.EDN. DATED 07-05-2007.