Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1215 (KER)

Jyothi Aparna J. W/o Dinesh v. State of Kerala

2025-05-19

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, an Upper Primary School Teacher in S.V.D.U.P. School, Purakkad, is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P18 order and to declare that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to have her name retained in the Teacher’s Package. The petitioner seeks for a further direction commanding the respondents to retain the name of the petitioner in the Teacher’s Package against Serial No.93 as it originally stood on 06.12.2011. 2. The petitioner states that she was appointed as UPST with effect from 01.06.2009 in a newly sanctioned post. The approval of the said appointment was delayed. The Manager had initially appointed Smt. Baby Girija as UPST on 01.06.2007 in an additional vacancy for the year 2008-2009. As there was a ban in making appointments, the said Smt. Baby Girija had to be shifted to a leave vacancy of UPST occurred due to the long leave taken by Smt. Ambili Shankar from 23.01.2008 till 22.01.2013. Still later on 14.07.2008, one Smt. Archana Suthan was appointed in the Additional Division vacancy, wherein Smt. Baby Girija was earlier appointed. The petitioner was thereafter appointed in the additional vacancy of UPST on 01.06.2009. 3. The petitioner states that the appointment of Smt. Baby Girija was approved only with effect from 01.06.2007 in the Additional Divisional vacancy sanctioned for the year 2007-2008. The approval for appointment of the petitioner was declined on the ground of non-approval of appointment of Smt. Archana Suthan, who is senior to the petitioner. 4. By Ext.P1 order, the DPI ordered to approve the appointment of Smt. Archana Suthan in the leave vacancy of Smt. Ambili Shanker from 14.07.2008 to 31.03.2009 on daily wages and from 01.06.2009 on regular pay basis in the Additional Division vacancy. By Ext.P1 order, the petitioner was treated as junior and was directed to be shifted to the LWA vacancy of Smt. Ambili Shanker. 5. Consequent to Ext.P1 order of the DPI, the appointment of the petitioner was approved from 02.06.2009 to 14.07.2010 as per Ext.P2 order. One of the posts of UPST was reduced in the year 2010-2011 consequent to Division fall. Accordingly, the approval of the appointment of the petitioner was restricted till 14.07.2010 in order to notionally accommodate Smt. Archana Suthan in the remaining period of the leave vacancy, alleging her seniority over the petitioner. One of the posts of UPST was reduced in the year 2010-2011 consequent to Division fall. Accordingly, the approval of the appointment of the petitioner was restricted till 14.07.2010 in order to notionally accommodate Smt. Archana Suthan in the remaining period of the leave vacancy, alleging her seniority over the petitioner. The petitioner would submit that the said Smt. Archana Suthan was not liable to be treated as senior to the petitioner. 6. Taking note of the approval granted to the petitioner on regular pay basis from 02.06.2009 to 14.07.2010, the petitioner was included in the Teacher’s Package as per Ext.P3 order dated 06.12.2011 and was placed at Serial No.93 in the list of Teachers included in the Teacher’s Package. 7. The Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Government as per Ext.P4 order. From Ext.P4 only, the petitioner came to know that the petitioner’s name has been removed from the Teacher’s Package. 8. The petitioner was appointed as UPST with effect from 01.06.2016 in the vacancy of a Head Teacher as per Ext.P5 appointment order dated 01.06.2016. The Assistant Educational Officer declined approval to the appointment of the petitioner stating that only protected Teachers could be appointed in the Head Teacher vacancy. Appeal preferred by the Manager against declining approval to the appointment of the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P7 order of the District Educational Officer. The DPI rejected the Revision Petition filed by the Manager as per Ext.P8 order dated 16.08.2017. The Government also upheld the DPI’s order as per Ext.P9 order dated 27.06.2018. 9. The petitioner states that the Manager and the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.23359/2018 and this Court quashed Ext.P9 order issued by the Government. In compliance of the directions of this Court, the Government granted approval for appointment of the petitioner in the Head Teacher vacancy with effect from 01.06.2016. The appointment of the petitioner thus stood approved from 01.06.2016 to 14.07.2018 on pay scale basis. Salary was also paid accordingly. 10. The petitioner would contend that the belated declining of approval for appointment of the petitioner and removing her name from the Teachers Bank has resulted in irreparable injury and loss to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, preferred a Revision Petition dated 30.11.2021. Salary was also paid accordingly. 10. The petitioner would contend that the belated declining of approval for appointment of the petitioner and removing her name from the Teachers Bank has resulted in irreparable injury and loss to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, preferred a Revision Petition dated 30.11.2021. The petitioner would submit that the Government rejected the Revision Petition on an erroneous consideration of factual and legal aspects involved in the case, as per Ext.P14 order dated 26.05.2022. In Ext.P14, it was stated that the petitioner was not appointed in a regular vacancy. Ext.P14 stated that Smt. Archana Suthan was senior to the petitioner. The request of the petitioner to include her name in the Teacher’s Package was rejected. 11. The petitioner states that the rejection of the petitioner’s request to be included in the Teacher’s Package on the ground that the petitioner was not appointed against a regular vacancy, is contrary to facts. Grant of approval till 14.07.2018 reveals that the Government has accepted the precedent of sanctioned post only till 15 th July of the succeeding year. 12. The petitioner’s request for including her name in the Teacher’s Package was again rejected by the Government as per Ext.P18 order dated 26.12.2023. The petitioner would contend that unless the name of the petitioner is included in the Teacher’s Package as it originally stood, the petitioner will be put to irreparable injury. 13. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the reasoning in the impugned order for rejecting the request of the petitioner to be included in the Teacher’s Package is untenable and unsustainable. Other identically situated Teachers have been given the benefits. The order has resulted in discriminating the petitioner. The Government is bound to act uniformly and fairly. 14. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the denial of the benefit of inclusion in Teacher’s Package to the petitioner on the pretext that her appointment being not in a regular vacancy, is contrary to facts. The fact that Government Order dated 01.10.2011 providing for Teacher’s Package was subsequently interfered by this Court, need not be a reason to treat the petitioner as not included in the Teacher’s Package. The petitioner therefore, sought to direct the respondents to retain the name of the petitioner in the Teacher’s Package. 15. The 5 th respondent-Assistant Educational Officer resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The petitioner therefore, sought to direct the respondents to retain the name of the petitioner in the Teacher’s Package. 15. The 5 th respondent-Assistant Educational Officer resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 5 th respondent submitted that Smt. Baby Girija was appointed in an additional post with effect from 01.06.2007. The appointment was given at a time when there was ban on appointment. Therefore, Smt. Baby Girija was transferred to fill up the leave vacancy of Smt. Ambili Shankar from 23.01.2008 to 22.01.2013. On and from 14.07.2008 Smt. Archana Suthan was appointed in the vacancy previously held by Smt. Baby Girija. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed in the additional vacancy of UPST on 01.06.2009. 16. The 5 th respondent stated that Government announced the Teacher’s Package and the petitioner was included at Serial No.93 . The appointment of the petitioner with effect from 02.06.2009 could have been approved only if she became the beneficiary of Rule 51A. The petitioner was therefore, not entitled to be included in the Teacher’s Package. Furthermore, the Additional Division post for the year 2009-2010, against which the petitioner was appointed was abolished by the staff fixation for the year 2010-2011. The petitioner was appointed with effect from 01.06.2011 since there was established vacancy. The removal of the petitioner’s name from the Teacher’s Package is therefore justified, urged the 5 th respondent. 17. The 5 th respondent submitted that due to loss of one post of UPST during staff fixation for the year 2010-2011 based on order dated 06.11.2012, the appointment of Smt. Archana Suthan from 14.07.2008 to 31.03.2009 on leave vacancy of Smt. Ambili Shankar have been approved in the pay scale. 18. The 5 th respondent pointed out that appointment of the petitioner from 02.06.2009 could be accepted only if she became the beneficiary of Rule 51A and included in the Teacher’s Package from 01.06.2011. The Additional Division post for the year 2009-2010, to which the petitioner was appointed should be abolished for the year 2010-2011 staff fixation. As the petitioner was appointed not against any established vacancy, the Assistant Educational Officer requested the Director of General Education to remove the name of the petitioner from Teacher’s Package. In the afore circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner to be included in the Teacher’s Package is not liable to be considered. 19. As the petitioner was appointed not against any established vacancy, the Assistant Educational Officer requested the Director of General Education to remove the name of the petitioner from Teacher’s Package. In the afore circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner to be included in the Teacher’s Package is not liable to be considered. 19. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 5. 20. The petitioner challenges Ext.P18 order and seeks to declare that she is eligible and entitled to have her name retained in the Teachers package. The petitioner was appointed as UPST on 01.06.2009 on the basis of which appointment, the petitioner was included in Teachers package. The said appointment was not approved. The DPI ordered shifting the petitioner to a leave vacancy and directed to approve the appointment from 02.06.2009 till 14.07.2010. The appointment was approved for the said period. 21. The petitioner preferred a revision petition. The Government rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner on 05.11.2013. The petitioner would contend that only from the Government Order dated 05.11.2013 she came to know that her name was deleted from the Teachers package. The petitioner was again appointed in a Head Teacher vacancy for which approval was granted for the period from 01.06.2016 to 14.07.2018. 22. This Court, by Ext.P17 judgment, directed the Government to consider the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The Government again rejected the revision petition as per Ext.P18 order. In Ext.P18 order, the Government held that the Teachers package is presently governed by GO (P) No.29/2016/GEd and that the petitioner is not entitled to be included in the Teachers package. The petitioner would contend that in the judgment in Dr. Sadasivan Nair G. v. Cochin University of Science and Technology and others , 2021 (6) KLT 746 , the Apex Court has held that the Government cannot apply certain orders to similarly situated persons and decline the benefits to the petitioner. Such an exercise will be arbitrary and illegal. 23. The Government Orders dated 01.10.2011, 29.11.2013 and 24.09.2013 governing the Teachers package were found to be illegal by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the judgment in Manager, Koorikuzhi AMUP School, Thrissur v. State of Kerala, 2015 KHC 655 . The learned Single Judge held that the said orders are contrary to the provisions contained in the Central Act. The learned Single Judge held that the said orders are contrary to the provisions contained in the Central Act. Those orders were issued by the Government without properly appreciating the provisions contained in the Central Statute and the ground reality at implementation level. The Government has also not followed the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules while the aforesaid orders were issued. Consequently, the learned Single Judge quashed GO (P) No.199/2011 dated 01.10.2011, GO (P) No.313/2013 dated 29.11.2013 and GO (P) No.3905/2013/GEdn dated 24.09.2013 and also the consequential executive orders issued in continuation of the said GOs. 24. The judgment was delivered on 15.01.2015. Thereafter, the Government issued GO(P) No.29/2016/GEdn dated 29.01.2016. By the said GO, the Government ordered that only the following employees will get protection: (1) Teaching/Non-teaching staff, who continue in regular service with approved appointment as on 31.03.2011. (2) Those Teaching/Non-teaching staff, who obtained approval since 01.06.2011 under the Teachers Package. (3) Those who have got protection in the light of earlier orders of protection. (4) Retrenched Teachers, who were appointed as Cluster Co-ordinators under the Teachers Package, Specialist Teachers who were deployed to other Schools even in the absence of vacancies. (5) Those who are appointed against regular vacancies from 2011-2012 to 2014- 2015, which arose due to resignation, death, retirement, promotion and transfer and who have been approved as per the ratio in paragraph (ii)(2). (6) Appointments since 2015-2016 will not get the benefit of protection. The petitioner does not fall within the ambit of GO dated 29.01.2016. It was for this reason that the revision petition preferred by the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P18 order. 25. The contention of the petitioner is that since certain Teachers have got benefit of Teachers package on the basis of earlier orders, the petitioner should also be given the benefits. It may be noted that the petitioner was removed from the Teachers package in the year 2013. Therefore, it would be inappropriate and unjust to direct the respondents to include the petitioner in the Teachers package which is non-existent now and at this distance of time. 26. In the afore facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to relief. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.