High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-03-19The writ petition is allowed; Exts.P4–P6 are se...

Sumayya N.K., Sumith Banu P.M., and Sheeba P.K. v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.8505 OF 2020(K)

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2021-03-19
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed. The court set aside Exts.P4–P6 and directed the District Educational Officer (DEO, Ernakulam) to reconsider the proposals for approval of the petitioners’ appointments from their dates of initial appointment (Exts.P1–P3), in light of Sneha Cheriyan (Supra) and Unni Narayanan (Supra). The DEO is to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the School Manager, either physically or via video conferencing, and issue a fresh order expeditiously, but no later than one month from receipt of the judgment. All eligible benefits must be disbursed to the petitioners within two months of the new order. The judgment also cites Ext.P10, a previous similar order of this Court, to guide the reconsideration process.
Final Disposition: The writ petition is allowed; Exts.P4–P6 are set aside; DEO to reconsider the approvals from the initial appointment dates with opportunity of hearing, and to issue a fresh order expeditiously, not later than one month; eligible benefits to be disbursed within two months of the new order; see Ext.P10 for similar directions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sumayya N.K.
Sumith Banu P.M.
Sheeba P.K.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, General Education Department, Secretariat Annexure 11, Thiruvananthapuram
Director of General Education, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram
Deputy Director of Education Ernakulam
District Educational Officer, Ernakulam
Manager, Lower Primary School Teacher, Darul Uloom VHS and HSS, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

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

Counsels for Respondents

• A. Lowsy

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, three teachers employed in Darul Uloom VHS and HSS, Ernakulam, approached the Kerala High Court seeking a direction to the 4th respondent (DEO, Ernakulam) to grant approval to their appointments dated 09.08.2004, 20.08.2004 and 31.08.2004, based on Exts.P1–P3. The impugned orders Exts.P4–P6 denied approval on the ground that the appointments were for less than an academic year, thus not qualifying for permanent approval. The petitioners argued that subsequent legal pronouncements, notably the Supreme Court’s Sneha Cheriyan decision and this Court’s Unni Narayanan decision, render such objections untenable and that they are entitled to substantive approval from the date of initial appointment. The Respondents contended that Rule 49 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules permits temporary retention only under specific conditions (eight months of service, vacation salary eligibility, and that additional division posts are temporary for the first three academic years). The court, while noting the respondents’ position, held that post-Sneha Cheriyan and post-Unni Narayanan, the objection appears untenable, and directed the DEO to reconsider the matter, provide an opportunity to be heard, and issue a fresh order expeditiously (not later than one month). It also directs payment of eligible benefits within two months of the new order, and cites Ext.P10 for a similar situation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 49 of Chapter XIV A of KER

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that, following Sneha Cheriyan (Supra) and Unni Narayanan (Supra), the DEO’s objection that their postings were for less than an academic year cannot stand. They relied on Exts.P1–P3 showing initial appointment approvals and urged that Exts.P4–P6, which deny continued/complete approval up to the academic year end, should be quashed. They contended that the law requires substantive approval for appointments even if made for less than one academic year, and that identical circumstances in prior judgments (e.g., WPC 27064/2017) have received directions for approval; they sought a fresh order granting approval from the date of initial appointment and the disbursement of due benefits.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defended the impugned orders, citing Rule 49 of Chapter XIV A of KER, which treats newly sanctioned additional division posts as temporary for the first three academic years; thus, approvals can be limited to the closing date of the academic year if service is less than eight months. They argued that the earlier approvals (Exts.P1–P3) were accordingly restricted (Exts.P4–P6). The Senior Government Pleader acknowledged that post-Sneha Cheriyan the position has shifted and suggested reconsideration, but the core argument remained that temporary status and duration can necessitate limited approvals. In essence, they requested dismissal or limited relief, pending a fresh decision by the DEO.”},

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sneha Cheriyan	Supra	Positive	Cited as controlling authority; supports substantive approval of appointments even when tenure is less than an academic year.
Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala	2009 (2) KLT 604	Positive	Cited as supportive; aligns with the view that shorter appointments require proper approval.
State of Kerala v. Sneha Cheriyan	2013 (1) KLT 755	Positive	Cited by petitioners to show Supreme Court/High Court position on approvals post-Sneha Cheriyan.
Judgment in WPC No. 27064/2017	23.08.2017	Positive	Identical factual circumstances in another case with directions for approval; used as precedent for relief.

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 Sumayya N.K., Sumith Banu P.M., and Sheeba P.K. 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.8505 OF 2020(K)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 SUMAYYA.N.K AGED 44 YEARS LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, DARUL UIOOM VHS AND HSS, ERNAKULAM 682 018.** - **2 SUMITH BANU.P.M., LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, DARUL UIOOM VHS AND HSS, ERNAKULAM 682 018.** - **3 SHEEBA.P.K., UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, DARUL UIOOM VHS AND HSS, ERNAKULAM 682 018.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ SMT.M.VISHNUPRIYA SMT.C.B.ABHINAVA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXURE 11, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM 686 026.** - **4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM 682 011.** - **5 MANAGER, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, DARUL UIOOM VHS AND HSS, ERNAKULAM 682 018.** **R1-4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5 BY ADV. SMT.A.LOWSY** **WP(C).No.8505 OF 2020 2** ## **SRI.P.M.MANOJ-SR.GP.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.8505 OF 2020 3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are stated to be working as Lower Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers in “Darul Uloom V.H.S and H.S.S.”, Ernakulam and they have approached this Court seeking a direction to the 4[th] respondent to grant approval to their appointments from 09.08.2004, 20.08.2004 and 31.08.2004 respectively, on the basis of Exts.P1, P2 and P3 appointment orders. They have also sought that Exts.P4, P5 and P6 be quashed, which had denied them the said benefit saying that their appointments cannot be approved, since the duration of such appointments were less than an Academic Year. 2. The petitioners say that the objections in the impugned orders are no longer available to the Educational Authorities to urge, after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**State of Kerala v. Sneha Cheriyan [2013 (1) KLT 755]**_ and that of this Court in _**Unni Narayanan v.**_ **WP(C).No.8505 OF 2020 4** _**State of Kerala [2009 (2) KLT 604].**_ The petitioner, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the 4[th] respondent be directed to grant approval to their appointments as prayed for. 3. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Shri.P.M.Manoj, in response to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners by Shri.M.A.Fayaz, submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on record wherein it has been averred as under:- “4. It is submitted that as per Rule 49 of Chapter XIV A of KER qualified teachers except Headmasters appointed in vacancies which are not permanent which extend over the summer vacation and who continued in such vacancies till the closing date shall be retained in the vacancies during vacation, if their continuous service as on the closing day is not less than eight months and the teachers so retained shall eligible for vacation salary. Those teachers shall be relieved on the closing day if their continuous service as on the closing day is less than eight months. The petitioners were appointed in additional division posts sanctioned during the academic year 2004-05. When an additional division post is sanctioned in an academic year, it is treated as a temporary post for the first three academic years including the year in which it is sanctioned. Therefore the approval allowed as per Exhibit P-1, P-2 and P-3 were reconsidered and revised by this respondent and their appointments were approved up to 31.03.2005 as per Exhibit P-4, P-5 and P-6 ie, the closing date of the academic year as their appointment was less than eight months during 2004-05. The petitioners service in the first academic year 2004-05 is less than eight months and **WP(C).No.8505 OF 2020 5** hence this respondent limited the approval as on the closing day of the academic year.” 4. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that, therefore, since the petitioners were appointed for less than an academic year initially and since the vacancies were additional division posts, they are entitled only to be approved upto 31.03.2005, namely the closing of the Academic Year 2004-2005, as has been done through Exts.P4, P5 and P6. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 5. However, to a pointed question from this Court, Shri.P.M.Manoj, learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that subsequent to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Sneha Cheriyan (Supra),**_ the position has been altered and even appointments made for less than one Academic Year will require to be approved substantively and admitted that this aspect has not been considered by the Educational Authority in the impugned order. ## **WP(C).No.8505 OF 2020 6** He submitted that, therefore, if this Court is so inclined, Government is willing to reconsider the matter and issue appropriate orders, adverting to _**Sneha Cheriyan (Supra)**_ and _**Unni Narayanan (Supra).**_ 6. When I consider the afore submissions and examine the impugned orders, it is clear that they have been issued by the District Educational Officer (DEO), Ernakulam, for the sole reason that the duration of appointments of the petitioners is less than an Academic Year. However, subsequent to _**Sneha Cheriyan (Supra)**_ and _**Unni Narayanan (Supra)**_ this objection, _prima_ _facie,_ appears to be untenable _;_ and am, therefore, of the firm view that the DEO must reconsider the matter and issue appropriate fresh orders, adverting to the afore mentioned judgments. In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set aside Exts.P4, P5 and ## **WP(C).No.8505 OF 2020 7** P6; with a consequential direction to the DEO, Ernakulam, to reconsider the proposal for approval of the appointments of the petitioners with effect from their date of initial appointment, as is evident from Exts.P1, P2 and P3, adverting to _**Sneha**_ _**Cheriyan (Supra)**_ and _**Unni Narayanan (Supra)**_ and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and to the Manager of the School – either physically or through video conferencing – thus culminating in a fresh order as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While completing the afore exercise, the DEO will also advert to Ext.P10 judgment of this Court, wherein, identical factual circumstances have been noticed and directions have been issued for approval of the appointment of the petitioner therein. **==> picture [344 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** ## **WP(C).No.8505 OF 2020 8** the afore exercise, all eligible benefits to the petitioners shall be disbursed to them without any avoidable delay, but not later than two months from the date of the order pursuant to the directions herein. ## **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** **MC/26.3.2021** **WP(C).No.8505 OF 2020 9** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER IN**| |---|---| ||**RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED**| ||**09.08.2004 CONTAINING THE ENDORSEMENT OF**| ||**THE APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER IN**| ||**RESPECT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED**| ||**20.08.2004 CONTAINING THE ENDORSEMENT OF**| ||**THE APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER IN**| ||**RESPECT OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED**| ||**31.08.2004 CONTAINING THE ENDORSEMENT OF**| ||**THE APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.**| ||**B2/3780/05/K. DIS ISSUED BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER**| ||**DATED 29.04.2005.**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.**| ||**B2/3781/05/K. DIS ISSUED BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER**| ||**DATED 29.04.2005.**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**PROCEEDINGS NO. B2/3779/04/K. DIS ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE 3RD**| ||**PETITIONER DATED 29.04.2005.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER IN**| ||**RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED**| ||**01.06.2005 CONTAINING THE ENDORSEMENT OF**| ||**APPROVAL BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE**| ||**1ST PETITIONER DATED 01.06.2005 CONTAINING**| ||**THE ENDORSEMENT OF APPROVAL BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER IN**| ||**RESPECT OF THE OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED**| ||**01.06.2005 CONTAINING THE ENDORSEMENT OF**| ||**APPROVAL BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.**| **WP(C).No.8505 OF 2020 10** **EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 27064/2017 DATED 23.08.2017.**