High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of; Ext.P5 quashed; directions to reco...

WP(C) Nos.10753 & 11984 of 2023: Dhibu M. Varkey v. State of Kerala & Others; Nisha S v. State of Kerala & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos. 10753 & 11984 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-04-04
Court Decision / Holding
Ext.P5 quashed. The 3rd respondent in WP 10753/2023 is directed to reconsider the matter in light of Ext.P9 and other judgments within one month, with consequential benefits to be disbursed within two months. The 3rd respondent in WP 11984/2023 is directed to reconsider within one month after the decision in WP 10753/2023, with consequential benefits disbursed within two months of the decision; both petitions are disposed of by a common judgment.
Final Disposition
Disposed of; Ext.P5 quashed; directions to reconsider within specified timeframes; consequential benefits to be disbursed accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Dhibu M. Varkey
  • Nisha S

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Director of General Education (formerly Director of Public Instruction)
  • Deputy Director (Education), Alappuzha
  • District Educational Officer, Kuttanad
  • Corporate Manager, CMS Schools, CSI Diocesan Office

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • S. Subhash Chand

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Government Pleader
  • • Surya Binoy

Case Synopsis & Summary

These two connected writ petitions challenge the denial of regular appointments by promotion under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A KER in CMS High School, Thalavady (Thiruvalla/Alapuzha district). Dhibu M. Varkey, promoted to Clerk from 01.07.2020, and Nisha S., promoted to Office Attendant, faced Ext.P5 orders rejecting promotion on the basis that the school was uneconomic and thus should hire or appoint by a protected hand. The petitioners contend that statutory rights under Rule 43 cannot be undermined by Government Orders and that the prior judgments cited (Exts. P6–P8 and P12) affirm that a post on a regular scale cannot be replaced by daily-wage appointments simply due to uneconomic status. They rely on the Secretary, Corporate Management of Schools case, and on a Division Bench ruling (Ext.P9) to argue that an uneconomic school’s policy cannot defeat eligibility for regular appointments. The court, after hearing, holds that Ext.P5 is unsustainable and quashes it, directing the 3rd respondent to reconsider the matter expeditiously in light of Ext.P9 and the other judgments, with consequential benefits to be disbursed within specified timeframes. The judgment is a common disposition addressing both petitions, clarifying statutory rights against administrative orders in the context of uneconomic schools.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A KERRule 8A of Chapter XIV A KERRule 51A of Chapter XIV A KER

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Appointments to established posts in uneconomic schools must be on regular pay scale; daily wage appointments are unsustainable.
  • Statutory rights under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A KER cannot be overridden by Government Orders.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that Ext.P5 denying promotion under Rule 43 is unsustainable. They rely on Exts.P6–P8 and P12, and on the Secretary, Corporate Management of Schools decision, to assert that statutory rights under Rule 43 cannot be defeated by Government Orders and that protected hands cannot override established posts when vacancies exist. They urge that uneconomic status cannot justify withholding regular pay-scale appointments and rely on Ext.P9 (Division Bench) to support regularization. They seek quashing of Ext.P5 and grant of promotion with effect from 01.07.2020 or earlier, with consequential benefits.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that CMS High School Thalavady is an uneconomic school; a protected hand must be accommodated, and Ext.P5 rejection is in accordance with policy. They rely on Rule 43, Rule 8A, and Government Orders, arguing that statutory rights under Rule 43 may be constrained by executive directives in the interest of staff protection and school economics. They contend that appointments should be governed by uneconomic-school policies and daily-wage arrangements where appropriate, until staff fixation is completed, and that the impugned orders are legally sound.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ciji P. Jose v. State of Kerala2012 (1) KLT 867PositiveCited as authority supporting regular pay scale claims in posts; used to bolster the Court’s view that statutory claims under Rule 43 cannot be undermined by administrative orders.
State of Kerala v. Ciji P. Jose2015 (1) KHC 232PositiveCited for affirmation of principles relating to Rule 43 and protected posts in the context of uneconomic schools.
Bipin Pavithran v. State of Kerala and Others2021 (2) KHC 515PositiveUsed to support the stance that uneconomic-school policy cannot override established post rights and regular pay scale.
Manager, P.K. High School and Others v. State of Kerala and Others2011 (4) KHC 179PositiveQuoted to reinforce the principle that statutory claims under Rule 43 cannot be whittled down by executive orders and related authorities.
Secretary, Corporate Management of Schools v. State of Kerala2023 (2) KHC 46PositiveCited as authority that government orders cannot extinguish statutory claims under Rule 43.
WA 1358/2021 and connected appealsDated 10.11.2021PositiveJudgment relied upon in Ext.P9; supports the principle that daily-wage filling of posts in uneconomic schools is unsustainable and that regular pay-scale appointments should be preferred.

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 WP(C) Nos.10753 & 11984 of 2023: Dhibu M. Varkey v. State of Kerala & Others; Nisha S v. State of Kerala & 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 10753 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` DHIBU M. VARKEY AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY VARKEY, MALAYIL HOUSE, THIRUMOOLAPURAM PO, THIRUVALLA -689115 (CLERK, CMS HIGH SCHOOL, THALAVADY) BY ADV S.SUBHASH CHAND ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001` - `2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION (FORMERLY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION), OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014` - `3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), ALAPUZHA -, PIN - 688001` - `4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUTTANAD - ., PIN - 688506` - `5 THE CORPORATE MANAGER THE CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, CMS SCHOOLS, CSI DIOCESAN OFFICE, CATHEDRAL ROAD, KOTTAYAM- ., PIN - 686001 BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR.GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2023, ALONG WITH WPC 11984/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C).Nos.10753 & 11984 of 2023 **2** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 11984 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` NISHA S AGED 39 YEARS W/O. RAJEEV RAJU, PALAPPARAMBIL, PANDANKARI PO, EDATHUA, ALAPPUZHA-. (OFFICE ATTENDANT, CMS HIGH SCHOOL, THALAVADY), PIN - 689673 ``` ``` BY ADV S.SUBHASH CHAND ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** |`1`|`THE STATE OF KERALA`| |---|---| ||`REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,`| ||`DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT`| ||`SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001`| |`2`|`THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION (FORMERLY`| ||`DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION)`| ||`OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,`| ||`JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - ., PIN - 695014`| |`3`|`THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION)`| ||`OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION),`| ||`ALAPUZHA - 688001`| |`4`|`THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER`| ||`OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,`| ||`KUTTANAD - 688506`| |`5`|`THE CORPORATE MANAGER`| ||`THE CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY,`| ||`CMS SCHOOLS, CSI DIOCESAN OFFICE, CATHEDRAL`| ||`ROAD, KOTTAYAM-, PIN - 686001`| ||`BY ADV SMT.SURYA BINOY, SR.GP`| ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2023, ALONG WITH WPC 10753/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C).Nos.10753 & 11984 of 2023 **3** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **-------------------------------W.P.(C).Nos.10753 & 11984 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 04[th] day of April, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** These two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing these writ petitions by a common judgment. 2. I will narrate the facts in W.P.(C). No.10753 of 2023 first: The petitioner in W.P.(C). No.10753 of 2023 was promoted and appointed as Clerk in CMS High School, Thalavady, with effect from 01.07.2020 onwards, in a regular retirement vacancy ,as per Ext.P1 order passed by the 5[th] respondent. The 4[th] respondent rejected Ext.P1 appointment by promotion of the petitioner under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A KER, as per Ext.P2 order, on the ground that, High School Section of the school was a newly upgraded one, and therefore, a protected hand ought to WP(C).Nos.10753 & 11984 of 2023 **4** have been appointed. Thereafter, on appeal, the said order was confirmed by the 3[rd] respondent as per Ext.P3 order. It is submitted that, in view of the fact that the 5[th] respondent had already appointed protected teachers, the 2[nd] respondent, in statutory revision filed under Rule 8A of Chapter XIV A KER, directed the 4[th] respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner, by Ext.P4 order. However, by Ext.P5 order, the 4[th] respondent again rejected the appointment of the petitioner by promotion as Clerk on the ground that the school in question, viz., CMS High School, Thalavady, was an uneconomic school and therefore, a protected hand ought to have been appointed. According to the petitioner, the issue in question has been specifically covered in favour of the petitioner by Exts.P6 and P7 judgments. The petitioner contended that Government Orders/Executive Orders could not either cripple or cabin statutory provisions contained in Rule 51A and Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A KER. The counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in WP(C).Nos.10753 & 11984 of 2023 **5** **the Secretary, Corporate Management of schools under the Society of the Order of Sacred Transfiguration, Pathanapuram v. State of Kerala [2023 (2) KHC 46]** , in which this Court observed that the operation of a claim under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A KER could not be interdicted by provisions contained in a Government Order. It is also submitted that as per Ext.P12 judgment, this Court was pleased to hold that a statutory claim under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A KER could not be whittled down by way of the provisions contained in a Government Order. Therefore it is submitted that Ext.P5 order is unsustainable and the petitioner is liable to be approved as Clerk with effect from 01.06.2020 onwards. 3. W.P.(C). No.11984 of 2023 is filed by one Nisha S., who was promoted and appointed as Office Attendant in CMS High School, Thalavady, with effect from 01.07.2020 onwards, in the vacancy arose because of the promotion of the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.10753 of 2023. But the 4[th] respondent rejected Ext.P1 appointment by WP(C).Nos.10753 & 11984 of 2023 **6** promotion of the petitioner Nisha S. under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A KER as per Ext.P2 order on the ground that High School Section of the school was a newly upgraded one and therefore, a protected hand ought to have been appointed. The petitioner in this case filed an appeal and the said order was confirmed by the 3[rd] respondent as per Ext.P3 order. However, in view of the fact that the 5[th] respondent had already appointed protected teachers, the 2[nd] respondent, in statutory revision under Rule 8A of Chapter XIV A KER, directed the 4[th] respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner in this case by Ext.P4 order, if it was otherwise in order. However, by Ext.P5 order, the 4[th] respondent has again rejected the appointment of the petitioner by promotion as Office Attendant on the ground that the school in question viz., CMS High School, Thalavady was an uneconomic school and therefore, a protected hand ought to have been appointed. It is submitted that the issue in this case also is covered by Exts.P6 and P7 judgments of this Court and WP(C).Nos.10753 & 11984 of 2023 **7** also the judgment in **Secretary, Corporate Management of schools’ case** (supra). 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 4. Ext.P5 is the impugned order in both the writ petitions. The main reason mentioned in Ext.P5 to reject the approval is that the school in which the petitioner is appointed is an uneconomic school. Whether such appointment can be approved is considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P9 judgment produced in these writ petitions. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P9 judgment here: “8. The upshot of the above discussion is that we find the stand of the Educational Authorities/Government that the post of Peon/Office Attendant in aided uneconomic U.P. Schools can be filled only on daily wage basis to be legally unsustainable. So long as there is a vacancy to an established post of Peon/Office Attendant, and the post is not one which is likely to be abolished in any staff fixation conducted in the school, the appointments made to the post have to be approved on regular scale of pay and not on daily wage basis.” 5. In the light of the above dictum and also in the light of Exts.P6 to P8 judgments and the other judgments WP(C).Nos.10753 & 11984 of 2023 **8** produced in the writ petitions, I am of the considered opinion that the finding in Ext.P5 in these writ petitions will not stand. Therefore, the impugned orders are to be set aside. Hence, these writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner: 1. Ext.P5 in W.P.(C). Nos.10753 and 11984 of 2023 are quashed. 2. The 3[rd] respondent in W.P.(C). No.10753 of 2023 is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Ext.P9 and other judgments produced along with these writ petitions, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a stamped certified copy of this judgment. Consequential benefits shall also be disbursed to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date on which the above WP(C).Nos.10753 & 11984 of 2023 **9** order is passed. 3. The 3[rd] respondent in W.P.(C). No.11984 of 2023 is directed to reconsider the matter based on the decision taken by the 3[rd] respondent in the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.10753 of 2023 as directed above, within one month from the date on which the decision as directed in W.P.(C). No.10753 of 2023 is taken. Based on the above order, the consequential benefits also shall be disbursed to the petitioner within two months from the date on which the above decision is taken. sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** JV/das WP(C).Nos.10753 & 11984 of 2023 **10** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10753/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF PROMOTION AND APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE POST OF OFFICE ATTENDANT TO THE POST OF CLERK IN CMS HIGH SCHOOL, THALAVADY DATED 1/7/2020 Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.B3/18010/2020 DATED 18.11.2020 THUS PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.B2/213468/2021 DATED 16.03.2022 THUS PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN REVISION BEARING NO.EC1/237388/2022 DATED 26.11.2020 Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.B3/129474/2022 DATED 28.02.2023 THUS PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT THUS REPORTED AS CIJI P. JOSE V. STATE OF KERALA (2012 (1) KLT 867) Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN STATE OF KERALA V. CIJI P. JOSE (2015 (1) KHC 232) Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT THUS REPORTED AS BIPIN PAVITHRAN V. AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS (2021 (2) KHC 515) Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 10.11.2021 IN WA NO.1358/2021 AND CONNECTED APPEALS Exhibit P10TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 01.12.2021 IN W.P.(C).NO.16158/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P11TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 02.06.2022 IN W.P.(C).NO. 5716/2022 OF THIS ``` WP(C).Nos.10753 & 11984 of 2023 **11** ``` HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P12TRUE COPY OF RULING IN MANAGER, P.K. HIGH SCHOOL AND OTHERS V. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS (2011 (4) KHC 179) OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ``` WP(C).Nos.10753 & 11984 of 2023 **12** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11984/2023`** ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` - `Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.22/2020 DATED 30.06.2020, THUS ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5.` - `Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.B3/17995/2020 DATED 18.11.2020 THUS PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4` - `Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.B2/213467/2021 DATED 16.03.2022 THUS PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3` - `Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN REVISION BEARING` - `NO.EC1/237389/2022/DGE/K.DIS DATED 09.02.2023` - `Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.B3/129473/2022 DATED 30.03.2023 THUS PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4` - `Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT THUS REPORTED AS CIJI P. JOSE V. STATE OF KERALA (2012 (1) KLT 867)` - `Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN STATE OF KERALA V. CIJI P. JOSE (2015 (1) KHC 232)` - `Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT THUS REPORTED AS BIPIN PAVITHRAN V. AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS (2021 (2) KHC 515)` - `Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 10.11.2021 IN WA NO.1358/2021` - `Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 01.12.2021 IN W.P.(C).NO.16158/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT` - `Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 02.06.2022 IN W.P.(C).NO. 5716/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT` - `Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF RULING IN MANAGER, P.K. HIGH SCHOOL AND OTHERS V. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS (2011 (4) KHC 179) OF THIS HON'BLE COURT`