Rajesh P.K. v State of Kerala and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S. ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 28947 OF 2016`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` RAJESH.P.K. AGED 41 YEARS, PART TIME URDU TEACHER, KATAMERI UP SCHOOL, THODANNUR SUB DISTRICT, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. 3THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THODANNUR, KOZHIKODE - 673 541. 4THE MANAGER KATAMERI UP SCHOOL, KATAMERI, KOZHIKODE - 673 542. ``` ## **`SRI T K VIPINDAS, SR. GP`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HERAD ON 26.7.2024, THE COURT ON 02.08.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.28947 of 2016 2 ## **EASWARAN S., J.** ## **-------------------------** ## **W.P.(C) No.28947 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd ] day of August 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner states that he was appointed as part time Urdu teacher with effect from 1.6.2010. Ext.P1 is the appointment order. It is pertinent to note that the appointment was a part time Urdu Teacher. Thereafter, seeking full time benefits, the petitioner submitted a representation before the 3rd respondent, which was rejected by Ext.P3. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent wherein it is pointed out that on the basis of G.O. (P) No.313/2013 G.Edn. dated 29.11.2013, the benefit of Full Time Scale cannot be granted to the petitioner. 3. The 1st respondent has also filed a counter affidavit in lines of the aforesaid contentions. W.P.(C) No.28947 of 2016 3 4. I have heard Sri. T.T. Muhamood, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. A.J. Varghese, the learned Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in **Bindu K Unnithan vs State of Kerala and others** [2014 KHC 5044] and also in terms of Ext.R1(a), G.O.(MS) No.62/73/S.Edn. Dated 02.05.1973, the petitioner is entitled for the Full Time benefits. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that with reference to the provisions contained under Chapter XXIII Rule 6 of the Kerala Education Rules (KER for short), the requirement of the Statute is that only if the school is having more than 15 periods, a Full Time post can be sanctioned. He further relied on the provisions of Chapter I Rule 3 of the KER to contend that, it is for the Government to pass appropriate orders, if it is brought to the notice of the Government that operation of the W.P.(C) No.28947 of 2016 4 Rules will cause hardship to the teachers. It is in consonance with the said power that Ext.R1(a) Government Order has been issued. In view of the fact that Ext.R1(b) Government Order has been issued modifying the terms and conditions under which the sanction can be made, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that the petitioner cannot be granted any benefits. He further relied on Ext.R1(c) Circular to contend that, for the purpose of sanctioning the post of Urudu Teacher, the minimum strength as stipulated has not been changed and therefore the ratio of 1:30/1:35 is to be followed. 7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar. 8. No doubt, the learned Government Pleader is justified in pointing out that the provisions of the KER require a minimum number of 15 periods for sanctioning of a Full Time Post. However, it is pertinent to note that, in exercise of the powers contained under Chapter I Rule (3) of the KER, Ext.R1(a) order was issued by W.P.(C) No.28947 of 2016 5 the Government on 2.5.1973, in which clause (vi) reads as under: ## (vi) **Conversion of part-time language teachers into full-time** The formula for creating full-time posts in independent high schools and U.P. schools attached to high schools will be extended to independent U.P. schools and L.P. schools and U.P. schools with attached L.P. schools. Besides this, part-time language teachers who have put in more than 5 years service and have 8 periods of work shall henceforth be made full-time. The utilisation of the services of these teachers for teaching regular classes and other subjects and giving them adequate work will be examined by the Director of Public Instruction. This will be with effect from the academic year 1973-74. Thereafter in the year 2013, Ext.R1(b) Government Order has been issued. Clause XII of Ext.R1(b) reads as follows: " XII. Language teachers who were given full time benefit and have less than 15 periods to teach shall be clubbed to nearby school by the educational officer concerned." 9. A cumulative reading of Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) leaves no room for doubt that Ext.R1(a) still holds the field. The application W.P.(C) No.28947 of 2016 6 of Ext.R1(b) to the facts of the case is misconceived. Clause XII as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader does not apply to the petitioner. On the contrary, it applies to cases where language teachers were given Full Time Benefit and they have less than 15 periods to teach and in such cases they will be clubbed to nearby school by the Educational Officers. 10. A reading of Ext.R1(b) cannot lead to a conclusion that the petitioner is disentitled to the benefit of Full Time Scale. This Court also notices the fact that a Division Bench of this Court, despite existence of Ext.R1(b), in **Bindu K Unnithan** (Supra) ordered that the teachers are entitled for the benefit of the Government Order providing them the Full Time Scale. 11. In the result, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Ext.P3 is therefore quashed. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to be sanctioned with Full Time Benefits in the light of G.O. (MS) No.62/73/S.Edn. Dated 2.5.1973 with effect from 1.6.2015. It is further noticed that, this Court, by interim W.P.(C) No.28947 of 2016 7 order dated 7.9.2016, had issued direction to the 3rd respondent to provisionally sanction the Full Time Benefit to the petitioner in the light of G.O.(MS) No.62/73 S.Edn dated 2.5.1973 with effect from 1.6.2015. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the said benefit has already been granted and the petitioner continues to receive the same. Resultantly, on setting aside Ext.P3 and declaring that the petitioner is entitled to the Full Time Benefits, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be entitled to receive the said benefits continuously. Writ petition ordered accordingly. Sd/- **EASWARAN S. JUDGE** NS W.P.(C) No.28947 of 2016 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28947/2016`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT P1.TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 01.06.2010. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2.TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HEADMASTER OF KATAMERI UP SCHOOL ON 22.08.2016. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/2469/2016 DATED 23.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4.A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2016 IN IA NO.11181/2016 IN WPC NO.19558/2016. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT R1(a)A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.62/73/G.EDN DATED 02.05.1973 ``` ``` EXHIBIT R1(b)A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.313/2013/G.EDN DATED 29.11.2013 EXHIBIT R1(c)A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 19.03.2014 ```