Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1212 (KER)

Basil Benny S/o Benny P. P. v. State of Kerala

2025-05-19

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. These two writ petitions have been filed by an Upper Primary School Teacher (UPST) working in Mar Basil Vocational Higher Secondary School, Senapathy, Idukki. The parties and exhibits are referred to in this judgment as they are described/marked in W.P. (C) No.1863/2025, for convenience. The petitioner states that he was appointed as UPST and his appointment was approved as per order dated 14.05.2024 with effect from 14.07.2022. 2. The 5 th respondent, another Teacher, filed a revision petition against the rejection of her approval of appointment. The 1 st respondent-State found that the rejection of approval of the appointment of the 5 th respondent is illegal and that she is entitled for approval with effect from the date of her appointment. Consequently, the approval of appointment granted to the 4 th respondent was cancelled. The approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner was not cancelled or modified by the 1 st respondent in Ext.P1. 3. Coming to know of Ext.P1, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation dated 04.12.2024 to the 2 nd respondent-DEO. A representation was submitted to the 3 rd respondent-Manager also. The 3 th respondent, without considering the representation of the petitioner, held that the petitioner is not entitled to continue in the School. The petitioner's service was terminated as per Ext.P3 order dated 16.12.2024. 4. The petitioner states that the reasoning of the 3 rd respondent is not in accordance with the Kerala Education Act or Rules. Since the approval to the 4 th respondent is cancelled, he is not a Teacher working in the School. Seniority can be decided only between approved Teachers. The petitioner therefore sought to quash Ext.P3. 5. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 order filing W.P.(C) No.466/2025. The District Educational Officer, in the meanwhile, passed Ext.P5 order dated 13.01.2025 without hearing the petitioner and without calling for an explanation from the petitioner. By Ext.P5 order dated 13.01.2025, the DEO confirmed Ext.P3 order dated 16.12.2024 of the Manager. The petitioner states that Ext.P5 order is illegal, unjust and arbitrary. 6. The 3 rd respondent-Manager filed counter affidavit. The 3 rd respondent stated that the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the 2 nd respondent on daily wage basis with effect from 14.05.2024. The revision petition filed by the 5 th respondent was pending with the 1 st respondent against termination of her services. 6. The 3 rd respondent-Manager filed counter affidavit. The 3 rd respondent stated that the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the 2 nd respondent on daily wage basis with effect from 14.05.2024. The revision petition filed by the 5 th respondent was pending with the 1 st respondent against termination of her services. The 1 st respondent held that the 5 th respondent is entitled to appointment in the resignation vacancy of Smt. Vandana S. Shekar. The 1 st respondent further directed to rearrange and reschedule the appointment of the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. The argument of the petitioner that his appointment was not cancelled or modified has no legal basis as there is a direction to rearrange and reschedule the appointments. 7. The 2 nd respondent-DEO also resisted the writ petition. The Government, as per Ext.P1 GO dated 28.11.2024, directed the Manager to appoint the 5 th respondent in the pay scale with effect from from the date of her appointment. The Manager submitted a request to ratify the action contained in the order dated 16.12.2024 of the Manager. The appointment of the 4 th respondent has been approved from 01.11.2021 whereas the appointment of the petitioner was approved with effect from 14.07.2022. The appointment of the 4 th respondent was cancelled by the 1 st respondent as per GO dated 28.11.2024. Consequently, the Manager rearranged the appointments terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner was terminated as he was the juniormost Teacher. 8. The 4 th respondent also resisted the writ petition. The 4 th respondent submitted that Ext.P1 order dated 28.11.2024 of the Government directed the Manager to adjust the lien in the School. The cancellation of the approval of the 4 th respondent was only to accommodate the 5 th respondent. Based on the directions issued by the Government, the 3 rd respondent passed Ext.P3 order dated 16.12.2024. There is no merit in the writ petitions filed by the petitioner. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the Government and the DEO, the learned counsel for the Manager and the learned counsel appearing for the 4 th and 5 th respondent-Teachers. 10. The 4 th respondent was appointed as UPST on 01.11.2021. The appointment was approved with effect from 01.11.2021. The 4 th respondent was appointed in resignation vacancy of Vandana S. Shekhar. 10. The 4 th respondent was appointed as UPST on 01.11.2021. The appointment was approved with effect from 01.11.2021. The 4 th respondent was appointed in resignation vacancy of Vandana S. Shekhar. As the said resignation was not accepted and since the 4 th respondent was not K-TET qualified, her appointment was not approved. In the meanwhile, on 15.07.2021, the Manager promoted one UPST Sri. Binny K. Joy as HST. The 4 th respondent was reappointed to the said post. As Binny K. Joy was also not K-TET III qualified, the appointment of the 4 th respondent was also not approved by the authorities. 11. Subsequently, the resignation of Vandana S. Shekar was notionally approved by the authorities in April, 2021. As Binny K. Joy had failed to get K-TET III qualified, he was reverted back as UPST with effect from 15.07.2021. Hence, there was an excess UPST. The appointment of the 4 th respondent was therefore not approved. 12. The 4 th respondent approached the Government. The Government, as per Ext.P1 order dated 28.11.2024, directed the DEO to approve the appointment of the 4 th respondent from 01.10.2018 and directed the Manager to rearrange the lien of Teachers in the School. Consequently, the petitioner, who was far junior to the 4 th respondent, was terminated. 13. The cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner was to accommodate a senior Teacher. As per Rule 55 Chapter XIVA KER, the number of permanent Teachers under each category in the staff list of any School or in all Schools under one educational agency shall not exceed the aggregate number of sanctioned posts under that category. Excess hands, if any, based on the strength of classes will be retrenched by throwing out the juniormost hands with due regard to the requirement of subjects. 14. As the petitioner was junior to the 4 th respondent and he was the juniormost UPST, he was terminated. I do not find any illegality in the termination of the petitioner. The writ petitions are therefore without any merit and are hence dismissed.