Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1216 (KER)

Lizamma Joseph v. State of Kerala

2025-05-19

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, who has retired as a HSST Junior (Malayalam), seeks to quash Exts.P3, P6 and P8 and to declare that she was appointed by transfer as HSST Junior (Malayalam) against a sanctioned post available in Exts.P9 and P10 Staff Fixation Orders. In the alternative, the petitioner prays that the workload of HSST Junior (Malayalam) is to be fixed in the light of Ext.P16 Government Order prescribing 50 students for a language Batch and an additional Batch at every point the Batch strength exceeds 50 by margin of 10 students. 2. The petitioner was appointed as HSST Junior (Malayalam) with effect from 19.06.2019 at St. Joseph's Higher Secondary School, Kodenchery. The appointment was against the 25% quota set apart for qualified HSSTs. The appointment of the petitioner as HSA (Malayalam) with effect from 18.06.2024 was approved as per Ext.P2. The petitioner has approved service as LPSA also. The Regional Deputy Director of Education rejected the proposal for appointment of the petitioner as HSST Junior (Malayalam) stating that the post against which the petitioner was appointed was a supernumerary post. The petitioner states that till Ext.P3 was issued, there was no objection as regards workload available. 3. The Manager submitted appeal against Ext.P3 order. The appeal was rejected as per Ext.P6 order as per order dated 17.02.2023. The Manager filed revision petition before the Government which was also dismissed as per Ext.P7 order dated 21.06.2023. The petitioner thereupon filed W.P. (C) No. 36807/2023. Ext.P7 order was set aside by this Court on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The Government, however, again rejected the revision mechanically as per Ext.P8 order dated 29.08.2024. 4. The petitioner states that she was appointed on 19.06.20219 during the period of 2018-2019 staff fixation. The Staff Fixation Order was issued only on 04.03.2020 at the fag end of the academic year 2019-2020. As per Ext.P9 Staff Fixation Order for the years 2014-2015 to 2018-2019, there is a post of HSST Junior (Malayalam). Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner on 19.06.2019 is justified. The petitioner is therefore entitled to approval for her by-transfer appointment. 5. The respondents resisted the writ petition. The respondents submitted that it is only when there are seven periods in excess of 25 periods that a HSST Junior post can be created. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner on 19.06.2019 is justified. The petitioner is therefore entitled to approval for her by-transfer appointment. 5. The respondents resisted the writ petition. The respondents submitted that it is only when there are seven periods in excess of 25 periods that a HSST Junior post can be created. Earlier, as per GO dated 29.11.2002, if there are 28 periods, a Senior HSST post and a Junior HSST post could have been permitted. But, after issuance of GOs dated 08.06.2017 and 17.06.2017, in Higher Secondary Schools, an additional Junior HSST post can be granted only if there are seven periods in excess of 25 periods. Therefore, Ext.P8 is perfectly justified. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 7. The specific case of the petitioner is that as per Ext.P9 Staff Fixation Order for the years 2014-2015 to 2018-2019, the post sanctioned for the year 2018-2019 includes the post of HSST Junior (Malayalam). The staff fixation for the year 2018-2019 was issued only on 04.03.2020 during the fag end of the academic year 2019-2020. The Manager was therefore justified in appointing the petitioner as HSST Junior (Malayalam) on 19.06.2019. As on the date of Ext.P1 appointment, there was a post of HSST Junior (Malayalam). 8. If there was a post of HSST Junior (Malayalam) as per the Staff Fixation Orders then existed, then the appointment of the petitioner is liable to be treated as regular. This aspect is not seen adverted to by the 1 st respondent while passing Ext.P8 order. Therefore, the issue is liable to be reconsidered comprehensively again. 9. Ext.P8 order is therefore set aside. The 1 st respondent is directed to reconsider the issue and pass orders afresh within a period of three months after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10. Writ Petition is disposed of as above.