P.K. Abdul Vahid v. Director of Public Instruction, Trivandrum; Assistant Educational Officer, Mattannur; V.R. Bhaskaran, Manager, Therur U.P. School; Ameri Padmanabhan; State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary, General Education (S) Department, Trivandrum

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN** **TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933** **WP(C).No. 19208 of 2007(J)** **----------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** - **-----------------------** **P.K.ABDUL VAHID, FULL TIME ARABIC TEACHER, THERUR U.P.SCHOOL, P.O.EDAYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **---------------------------** **1. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM.** **2. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MATTANNUR.** **3. V.R.BHASKARAN, MANAGER, THERUR** - **U.P.SCHOOL, P.O.EDAYANNUR, KANNURDISTRICT.** **4. AMERI PADMANABHAN, PADMALAYAM,** - **P.O.EDAYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION (S) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM.** **R1, R2 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW R3 BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN,** **SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL. R4 BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN, SRI.ANIL.D.KAITHAKKAL.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **WPC.NO.19208/2007 J** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DTD.29/05/2004.** **P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.0427/06 DTD. 31/01/2006.** **P3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER NO.B51617/06/K.DIS. DTD. 21/08/2006.** **P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT NO.G4.76038/06/K.DIS. DTD. 16/04/07.** - **P5: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 19337/04 DTD. 30/03/2005.** - **P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 27/09/2005.** - **P7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.21995/F2/05/G.EDN. DTD. 27/12/05.** - **P8: COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC.206/07 DTD. 24/05/07.** - **P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.30597/07 DTD. 22/10/2007.** - **P10: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.4298/2009/G.EDN.DTD. 15/10/2009.** **P11: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.5/07 OF THE MANAGER, THERUR U.P.SCHOOL DTD. 23/10/2009.** **P12: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC.30421/09 DTD. 27/10/2009.** **P13: COPY OF ORDER NO.B-3359/2006 DTD. 7/02/2011 ISSUED BY ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MATTANNUR.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **S. SIRI JAGAN, J.** ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19208 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of October, 2011 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner was appointed as a Full Time Arabic Teacher in Therur U.P. School, which is an aided School, on 24.6.2004, by the then Manager of the school in office, the 3[rd] respondent herein. The Assistant Educational Officer and the District Educational Officer refused to approve that appointment on the ground that there is no approved Manager for the School and there is a management dispute, which is under consideration of the Government. The matter was taken in revision before the Government. This Court in W.P.(C)No.30597/07 filed by the petitioner and another Peon of the School directed the Government to dispose of that revision. By Ext.P10 order, the Government rejected the revision upholding the orders of the Assistant Educational Officer, the District Educational Officer and the Director of Public Instructions, which are Exts.P2, P3 and P4 respectively. Pursuant to Ext.P10 order, by Ext.P11 order, the W.P.(C)No.19208/07 2 Manager terminated the service of the petitioner. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) to call for the records leading to Ext-P10 and P11 and quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other Writ, direction or order. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, directing the official respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as full time Arabic Teacher in the Therur U.P. School, P.O. Edayannur, Kannur District and to pay salary and arrears to the petitioner from the date of his appointment was approved with effect from 24-6-2004 and continue to pay his salary. iii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders quashing the originals of Exts.P2, P3 and P4. iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders commanding the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Arabic Teacher in Therur U.P. School, P.O. Edayannur, Kannur district with effect from the date of his appointment namely 24.6.2004 and to give him all consequential benefits including his pay and salary”. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that by Ext.P1 order dated 29.5.2004, the Assistant Educational Officer had approved the appointment of the 3[rd] respondent as Manager of the School. That approval continued until the Director of Public Instructions passed Ext.P6 order setting aside the approval of the 3[rd] respondent as Manager by Ext.P1 order. W.P.(C)No.19208/07 3 Ext.P6 order was passed on 27.9.2005. Therefore, according to the petitioner, from 29.5.2004 till 27.9.2005 the 3[rd] respondent was the approved Manager of the School. The petitioner was appointed by the 3[rd] respondent as Full Time Arabic Teacher on 24.6.2004 during the above said period and therefore, the petitioner was appointed by the then approved Manager of the School and going by the Division Bench decision of this Court in _**Manager, St.Mary's High Schoo**_ l v. _**Beji Abraham**_ [2002(1) KLT 406], the mere fact that the appointment and approval of the Manager was subsequently found to be illegal or irregular cannot take away the right of the appointees for approval of the validly made appointment. 3. The 1[st] respondent Director of Public Instructions has filed a counter affidavit supporting the impugned orders. The 4[th] respondent, who is the competitor to the 3[rd] respondent for managership of the school, has also filed counter affidavit supporting the impugned orders. The contention of the 4[th] respondent is that the 3[rd] respondent has no manner of right whatsoever to be appointed as the Manager and he was never appointed as a Manager of the School validly at any time. Therefore, the 3[rd] respondent is a usurper of the post. 4 W.P.(C)No.19208/07 Consequently, appointments of teachers and staff of the School made by the 3[rd] respondent, who had no manner of right to be the Manager of the School, is patently invalid and unsustainable, is the contention raised. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Notwithstanding the fact that, by Ext.P6 order, the Director of Public Instructions had set aside Ext.P1 order of approval of the 3[rd] respondent as the Manager, it remains a fact that by Ext.P1 order dated 29.5.2004 the 3[rd] respondent was in fact approved as the Manager of the school, which approval continued to be in force until Ext.P6 order was passed by the Additional Director of Public Instructions on 27.9.2005 setting aside Ext.P1 order of approval of the appointment of the 3[rd] respondent as the Manager. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a Full Time Arabic Teacher of the school with effect from 24.6.2004, on which date Ext.P1 approval of appointment of the 3[rd] respondent as the Manager was still in force. Teachers, who get appointed in an aided school need only ascertain whether they were appointed by the approved Manager of the School. They can accept or not accept appointments made by the approved Manager, after W.P.(C)No.19208/07 5 ascertaining whether such approval of the Manager is valid or not. If appointments of teachers and staff made by the approved Manager is to be set aside years later on resolution of a management dispute finding that the Manager who appointed them was not validly appointed, it would cause sheer injustice to unsuspecting teachers, who got appointment by the then approved Manager. In fact, that is exactly what the Division Bench of this Court had held in _**Beji Abraham's case (supra).**_ Therein, the Division Bench has categorically held that the mere fact that appointment of a Manager was subsequently found to be illegal or irregular could not take away the rights of appointees. That principle of law squarely applies to the facts of this case. As on the date of appointment of the petitioner as Full Time Arabic Teacher on 24.6.2004, the 3[rd] respondent was an approved Manager by virtue of Ext.P1. That approval was set aside only on 27.9.2005 by Ext.P6 order. (Copy of Ext.P6 produced is incomplete. The petitioner has made available to the Court a full text of Ext.P6, which I have perused). That being so, I am of opinion that the petitioner's appointment could not have been refused to be approved on the ground that the 3[rd] W.P.(C)No.19208/07 6 respondent was not the Manager of the School and there was a management dispute pending at that time. Therefore, the impugned orders are quashed. It is submitted before me that subsequently the petitioner got appointment in Government service through Public Service Commission and he got himself relieved from the school with effect from 1.6.2010. That being so, the petitioner is entitled to get his appointment as Full Time Arabic Teacher in the Therur U.P. School approved for the period from 24.6.2004 till 1.6.2010. Orders approving the appointment of the petitioner for the said period shall be issued by the 2[nd] respondent and arrears of salary and allowances disbursed to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. ## **S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE** acd