Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 154 (KER)

Sanjeevan v. District Educational Officer

2000-03-10

ARIJIT PASAYAT, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2000
Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. These appeals are preferred against the judgment in O.P.No. 78 of 1999. W.A. No. 2462 of 1999 is preferred by the petitioner in the Writ Petition, and W.A. No. 2532 of 1999 is preferred by the sixth respondent in the Writ Petition, the Manager of the School. 2. Manager of Sree Narayana Teachers Training Institute appointed the appellant as a Training School Assistant with effect from 2.6.1997 in a retirement vacancy of one Sankara Pillai. Management sought approval of the appointment. District Educational Officer vide his order dated 1.8.1997 rejected the same stating that claim of the fifth respondent, Pushpalatha under R.43 of Chap. XIV-A of the KER was not considered while effecting appointment. Order also stated that no classes were functioning in the Teachers' Training Institute and the Manager had not produced the declaration as prescribed in G.O.(Ms) No. 259/90/G.Edn. dated 15.12.90. Aggrieved by the said order, Manager preferred appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, who rejected the same by order dated 22.4.1998. Later Manager preferred a revision before the Director of Public Instruction, who vide his order dated 14.12.1998 dismissed the revision. Aggrieved by those orders, Writ Petition was preferred. Learned Single Judge did not interfere with the orders passed by the educational authorities. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals are preferred. 3. Appellant-sanjeevan was earlier appointed as a Training School Assistant in a leave vacancy of Sankara Pillai for the period from 19.9.1995 to 20.11.1995. He was again appointed from 20.6.1996 to 30.11.1996 in a leave vacancy of one P.K. Chandrasekharan. The above mentioned appointments were duly approved. While so, Sankara Pillai retired from service on 31.5.1997. Consequently a vacancy of TSA arose in the Institute from 2.6.1997. Appellant claims that he is qualified to teach both Malayalam and Social Studies. Manager accordingly appointed the appellant in the vacancy of Sankara Pillai on 2.6.1997. The said appointment was not approved on the ground that there was another Rule 43 claimant, the fifth respondent. Fifth respondent joined as UPSA in the Sree Narayana A.U.P. School, run by the same management of Sree Narayana Teachers Training Institute, on 15.6.1992. The said school is the demonstration school of the Sree Narayana Teachers' Training Institute. A vacancy of TSA arose in the Institute consequent on the retirement of Sankara Pillai. Question to be considered is who is the legitimate claimant for the said post. 4. The said school is the demonstration school of the Sree Narayana Teachers' Training Institute. A vacancy of TSA arose in the Institute consequent on the retirement of Sankara Pillai. Question to be considered is who is the legitimate claimant for the said post. 4. Undisputably fifth respondent was appointed as UPSA on 15.6.1992 in the Sree Narayana AUP School, and the appellant was appointed as TSA on 19.9.1995, and that the fifth respondent had acquired the necessary qualification to be promoted to the post of TSA on 31.5.1997. Post of TSA, as already mentioned, arose in the Institute which forms part of the Sree Narayana AUP School. Admittedly the post of TSA is having a higher scale of pay. R.43 claimant will have preference in the matter of appointment over 51A claimant. If it is found that Sree Narayaya AUP School is part of the Sree Narayana Teacher's Training Institute, and they have to be treated as one single unit, claim of fifth respondent cannot be overlooked since admittedly she is a R.43 claimant. 5. Counsel for the appellants contended that Sree Narayana AUP School and Sree Narayana Teachers Training Institute are independent entities and consequently, fifth respondent cannot claim any right under R.43 so as to get appointment in the Institute as TSA. Senior counsel, Sri. K. Chandrasekharan, appearing for the appellants referred to decisions of this Court in Luciamma v. State of Kerala, 1990(1) KLT 86; K. Padminikutty v. D.E.O., 1996 (1) KLJ 368 and P.G. Madhavan v. P.K. Santhakumari Amma, 1994 (2) KLJ 370. Counsel also referred to various provisions of the Kerala Education Rules to contend that Teachers' Training Institute and School are different entities. Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents Sri. M. Sasindran on the other hand contended that as per R.3 of Chap. XXV of the Rules, every training school shall have a Primary School up to and including std. VII attached to it as demonstration school, and consequently, both the schools have to be treated as a one single unit. 6. R.35 of Chap. XIV-A of the KER says if the educational agencies have more than one school in a District, they shall be constituted into one unit and a common seniority list shall be prepared for all the schools in the unit together and shall be submitted to the concerned District Educational Officer for approval. 6. R.35 of Chap. XIV-A of the KER says if the educational agencies have more than one school in a District, they shall be constituted into one unit and a common seniority list shall be prepared for all the schools in the unit together and shall be submitted to the concerned District Educational Officer for approval. If the educational agencies have schools in more than one District within a region, they shall be constituted as one unit together and a common seniority list shall be prepared for all the schools in the unit together and submitted to the concerned Deputy Director of Education for approval. R.3 of Chap. XXV also says that every training school shall have a Primary school up to and including Standard VII attached to it as demonstration school. The Headmaster of the demonstration school shall, in academic matters, be under the orders of the Headmaster of the training school to which it is attached. It is also stated till the separation of training schools from High Schools, the Lower and Upper Primary sections of the Secondary Schools may be used as the demonstration schools. 7. In view of the above mentioned statutory provisions, it is evident that Sree Narayana AUP School is a demonstration school of Sree Narayana Teachers' Training Institute. Consequently, both the schools have to be treated as a single unit. If both the schools are treated as a single unit, claim under R.43 cannot be overlooked. R.43 says that subject to Rr. 44 and 45 and consideration of efficiency and any general order that may be issued by the Government vacancies in any higher grade of pay shall be filled up by promotion of qualified hands in the lower grade according to seniority, if such hands are available. Evidently, the post of TSA is in a higher grade compared to UPSA. Consequently, if any qualified hand is available in the lower grade according to seniority, that hand has to be preferred for promotion to the higher grade, that is, TSA. It is also to be noted that there are three posts of TSA in the Institute and those posts belong to the category of Mathematics, Physical Science or Natural Science and Social Studies, English and Malayalam. Admittedly Sankara Pillai was a Social Studies hand and fifth respondent is a Social Studies hand. Consequently appellant cannot claim any preference over the fifth respondent. 8. Admittedly Sankara Pillai was a Social Studies hand and fifth respondent is a Social Studies hand. Consequently appellant cannot claim any preference over the fifth respondent. 8. In the said circumstances we do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the educational authorities rejecting the approval of appointment of the appellant as TSA. The judgment of the learned single judge is only to be sustained. Writ Appeals lack merits and they are dismissed.