Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchAppeals dismissed.

WA No. 2148 of 2019 & WA No. 2155 of 2019 (Richa Lambai v State of Kerala; Rekha Leela Lukose v State of Kerala)

Case / Petition Number:WA.No.2148 of 2019 & WA.No.2155 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A.M. Shaffique
  • Mary Joseph J.
Judgment Date
2020-01-27
Court Decision / Holding
The appeals are dismissed.
Final Disposition
Appeals dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Richa Lambai
  • Rekha Leela Lukose

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government of Kerala, Department of General Education, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Director of Higher Secondary Education Housing Board Buildings, Santhinagar, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education, Kottayam
  • Manager, Corporate Educational Agency of Kothamangalam Diocese
  • Manager, Corporate Educational Agency of Idukki Diocese
  • Johnson Joseph HSST, St. Thomas HSS Thankamani, Idukki
  • Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education, Ernakulam
  • Sibi John, HSST Junior (Computer Science), St. Sebastian HSS, Vazhi thala, Idukki

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. Biji Mathew
  • • Sri James P. Thomas
  • • Sri. Priyadarshini Vincent
  • • Sri. Reshmi Jacob
  • • Sri. Baby Thomas
  • • Sri. R.Parthasarathy
  • • Sri. Seema
  • • Sri. S. P. Aravindakshan Pillay
  • • Sri. N. S
  • • Sri. V. Varghese
  • • Sri. P. Jose Christo
  • • Sri. S. A. Anand
  • • Sri. K. N. Remya
  • • Sri. L. Annapoorna
  • • Sri. Vishnu V. K.
  • • Sri. Kum. Abhirami K. Uday

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Vinod B. SR.G.P.
  • • Sri R. Parthasarathy
  • • Sri Seema
  • • Sri S. P. Aravindakshan Pillay
  • • Sri N. S Antha
  • • Sri V. Varghese
  • • Sri P. Jose Christo
  • • Sri S. A. Anand
  • • Sri K. N. Remya
  • • Sri L. Annapoorna
  • • Sri Vishnu V. K.
  • • Sri Kum. Abhirami K. Uday

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a joint writ appeal by two teachers challenging measures taken in the wake of bifurcation of the Kothamangalam and Idukki dioceses, with their disputes centering on Rule 51A claims under Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules (KER). WA No. 2148/2019 concerns Richa Lambai, who was employed in a leave vacancy from 2014 to 2018 and contends that, as a Rule 51A claimant, she should have been given preference in filling a vacancy in the Kothamangalam diocese, especially when an Ext. P4 order of the Director of Higher Secondary Education purported to govern deployment by transferring optees from Idukki to Kothamangalam. WA No. 2155/2019 involves Rekha Leela Lukose, who claims that her permanent appointment in 2017 should have been treated as effective from 2017 under Rule 51A. The government, by Ext. P5 (2013), set aside Ext. P4 and directed that deployment need not be restricted by a cut-off date; this was challenged in WP(C) Nos. 27822 of 2013 and related petitions, with the Single Judge upholding Ext. P5 and the matter progressing to these appeals. The core issue is whether Rule 51A applies to teachers appointed under Chapter XXXII and whether the management’s extant practice (Ext. P4) could or should be overridden. The High Court, in a Division Bench decision, dismisses the appeals, affirming the non-applicability of Rule 51A to Chapter XXXII appointments and the validity of the extant orders.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules (KER)Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules (KER)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that they are Rule 51A claimants under Chapter XIV A and ought to be accommodated preferentially in vacancies arising in schools under the Kothamangalam Diocese. They submit that even though Ext. P4 directed deployment through transfers from Idukki, the policy of prioritizing optees under Rule 51A should prevail and vacancies created as on 7-1-2004 ought to be filled first from the optee pool. They challenge Ext. P4 as subverting their rights under Rule 51A and rely on earlier judicial pronouncements that Rule 51A does not apply to teachers appointed under Chapter XXXII. They argue that the management’s long-standing compliance with Ext. P4 should not bar them from admission to posts that arise subsequently and that Ext. P5’s setting aside of Ext. P4 is contrary to the 51A entitlement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that Rule 51A has no applicability to teachers appointed under Chapter XXXII. They contend that Ext. P4 represented a policy for filling vacancies arising in the Diocese post-bifurcation and that the Government’s Ext. P5 order (30-8-2013) rightly set aside Ext. P4, allowing deployment from Idukki to Kothamangalam based on vacancies that may occur later as well. They emphasize that the petitioners cannot claim the status of 51A claimants for appointments governed by Chapter XXXII, and that the management has been acting in consonance with Ext. P4 and that Ext. P5 legitimate changes in deployment policy. They rely on the need for administrative efficiency and avoidance of preferential treatment at the cost of others, and reference earlier decisions upholding the non-application of Rule 51A to Chapter XXXII appointments.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Kerala and others v. Manager, ST.Roch's High School, TVM and Others[2014 (2) KHC 520 (DB)]PositiveThe decision is cited to support the proposition that Rule 51A has no application to teachers appointed under Chapter XXXII, reinforcing the court’s stance that such 51A claims cannot override appointments under XII Chapter XXXII.
Valsa P. v. Sujamol S and others[2017 (5) KHC 513(DB)]PositiveCited for the same principle that Rule 51A does not apply to Chapter XXXII appointments, reinforcing the DB’s position on the inapplicability of 51A to the petitioners’ cases.

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 WA No. 2148 of 2019 & WA No. 2155 of 2019 (Richa Lambai v State of Kerala; Rekha Leela Lukose v State of Kerala) 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 A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 7TH MAGHA, 1941** **WA.No.2148 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2019 IN WP(C) 3601/2019(A) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **RICHA LAMBAI, AGED 32 YEARS W/O.DEEPU SEBASTIAN, HSST(PHYSICS) ON GUEST BASIS, EMPLOYED AT ST.MARY'S HSS ARAKUZHA, RESIDING AT URUMBIL HOUSE, KAVAKADU.P.O., KALLOORKAD, ERNAKULAM -686 668** **BY ADVS. SRI.BIJI MATHEW SRI.JAMES P. THOMAS SMT.PRIYADARSINI VINCENT SMT.RESHMI JACOB SRI.BABY THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **2 DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **3 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **4 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM-686 001** WA.No.2148 OF 2019 & Con.case 2 - **5 MANAGER CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF KOTHAMANGALAM DIOCESE, BISHOP'S HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM.P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691** - **6 MANAGER CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF IDUKKI DIOCESE, BISHOP'S HOUSE, KAIMBAN, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 602** - **7 JOHNSON JOSEPH HSST ST.THOMAS HSS THANKAMANI, IDUKKI-685 609** - **8 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM – 682 024** **R1–R4 & R8 BY SRI. VINOD.B. SR.G.P.** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.01.2020, ALONG WITH WA.2155/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA.No.2148 OF 2019 & Con.case 3 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 7TH MAGHA, 1941** **WA.No.2155 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2019 IN WP(C) 21743/2017(P) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **REKHA LEELA LUKOSE AGED 36 YEARS D/O. LUKOSE, PUTHENKULAM HOUSE, NEYYASSERY P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SMT.SEEMA** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001** - **2 DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION HOUSING BOARD BUILGS, SANTHINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001** - **3 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001** - **4 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM 686 001** WA.No.2148 OF 2019 & Con.case 4 - **5 MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF KOTHAMANGALAM, DIOCESE , BISHOPS HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM 686 001** - **6 MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF IDUKKI DIOCESE, BISHOPS HOUSE, KAIMBAN, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 602** **7 SIBI JOHN, HSST JUNIOR (COMPUTER SCIENCE) ST. SEBASTINE HSS, VAZHITHALA, IDUKKI 685 583** **R7 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY R7 BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA R7 BY ADV. SRI.V.VARGHESE R7 BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO R7 BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND R7 BY ADV. SMT.K.N.REMYA R7 BY ADV. SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA R7 BY ADV. SHRI.VISHNU V.K. R7 BY ADV. KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY** **R1 – R4 BY SRI. VINOD.B. SR.G.P.** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.01.2020, ALONG WITH WA.2148/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA.No.2148 OF 2019 & Con.case 5 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **[ WA.2148/2019, WA.2155/2019 ]** ## **Dated this the 27th day of January 2020** ## **Shaffique,J.** These appeals are preferred by two teachers who ventilate the grievance regarding their claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of KER. As far as the appellant in WA No.2155 of 2019 is concerned, she got permanent appointment in the school managed by the Kothamangalam Diocese with effect from 18.12.2017. Her only claim is that she ought to have been appointed effective from 5.2.2017 as she was a Rule 51A claimant. In W.A No.2148 of 2019 the petitioner is the appellant. She was employed in a leave vacancy from 6.1.2014 till 15.12.2018. Her appointment in the leave vacancy was approved as per order dated 17.7.2015. According to her, a vacancy had arisen in the school managed by the Kothamangalam Diocese, but no appointment is WA.No.2148 OF 2019 & Con.case 6 being made on account of the fact of existence of Ext.P4 order passed by the Director of Higher Secondary Education. Contention of the petitioner is that she being a claimant under Rule 51A Chapter XIV A of KER, she should be accommodated rather than accommodating any other person. 2. The issue involved in these case primarily relates to bifurcation of Kothamangalam Diocese and Idukki diocese. At that time, an option was given to the persons working in the respective diocese to opt for continuing under the same diocese or for transfer to the other diocese. Most of the teachers who came under the Idukki diocese opted for Kothamangalam diocese on account of the geographical position. Since the Kothamangalam Diocese was not in a position to accommodate all the optees **,** a proposal was made by the Management that in respect of posts created in the school that existed as on WA.No.2148 OF 2019 & Con.case 7 7.1.2004, if any vacancies arise due to death, resignation and retirement, they would be filled up by transferring the teachers from schools in the Corporate Education Agency, Idukki. The aforesaid proposal was accepted by the Director of Higher Education. The said order came to be challenged before the Government and the Government by Ext.P5 order dated 30.8.2013 set aside the direction issued by the Director of Higher Secondary Education and held that there should not be any cut off date regarding deployment of such optees and the deployment from Idukki to Kothamangalam should be with reference to vacancies that may arise subsequently as well. The aforesaid order came to be challenged before this Court by filing WP(C)No.27822 of 2013 and in a batch of Writ Petitions. The learned Single Judge of this Court as per judgment dated 9.12.2015 upheld Ext.P5 order of the Director of Higher Education. Though the matter was carried in WA.No.2148 OF 2019 & Con.case 8 appeal as W.A No.359 of 2016 and connected cases, the Writ Appeal was also dismissed. The fact remains that Ext.P4 was being followed by the Management all along. The primary claim of the petitioners is that they should be preferentially treated in view of the fact that they are claimants under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of KER. Apparently, the said agreement cannot be sustained on account of the fact that Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of KER has no application to teachers who are appointed under Chapter XXXII. This position has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in **State of Kerala and others v.** **Manager, ST.Roch's High School, TVM and Others** **[2014 (2) KHC 520 (DB)]** as well as in **Valsa P.** ## **v.Sujamol S and others [2017 (5) KHC 513(DB)]** 2. Learned counsel for the appellant in W.A No.2118 of 2019 submits that a new vacancy would arise in St.Mary'S HSS, Arakuzha on 31.3.2020. In such an event, it is open for WA.No.2148 OF 2019 & Con.case 9 the petitioner to make a claim in respect of the said vacancy. In so far as Ext.P4 order is being complied with by the management, it may not be possible for us to direct that the optees cannot be accommodated in the schools managed by Kothamangalam diocese as Ext.P4 had become final. A claim against Ext.P4 cannot be sustained. In the result, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. These appeals are dismissed. **Sd/-** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **JUDGE** **Sd/-** **MARY JOSEPH JUDGE** **Sn** **//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE**