Anwar Sadath E. vs State of Kerala and Others

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

A Physical Education Teacher who did not get approval of appointment so far even though he was appointed in the year 2005, is before this Court. The orders under challenge are Exhibits P2 to P4 and P11. In Exhibit P2, the view taken is that in the light of G.O.(P) No. 178/02/G. Edn. dated 28.6.2002, vacancies of newly created/upgraded schools will be filled up by protected teachers. The same was reiterated in Exhibits P3 and P4 orders passed by the higher authorities also. Ultimately, the Government also confirmed the same by Exhibit P11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Exhibits P8 and P9 orders granting approval for similar appointments in nearby schools have not been taken note of by the Government.

Earlier, this Court in Exhibit P10 judgment directed the Government to reconsider the matter in the light of the findings rendered in Paragraph No. 4 of the judgment.

The consistent plea raised by the Petitioner is that at the time of appointment, a protected hand was not available. But in Exhibit P11 the view taken is that appointment of teachers covered by Exhibits P10 and P11 are approved against orders on G.O.(P) No. 178/2002/G. Edn. dated 28.6.2002 and hence the case of the Writ Petitioner cannot be considered based on these bad precedents.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents the orders are sought to be supported.

The main question is whether any protected hand was available in the Education District for appointment at the time of issuance of Exhibit P1. In this context, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on Exhibit P14, a communication from the Deputy Director of Education dated 10.2.2011 to the Manager of the school. Therein, it is pointed out that to the vacancies of HS As in various subjects and HSA Physical Science and the post of Physical Education Teachers, as on 1.8.2006 and 25.8.2006 in the Wandoor Education District protected teachers were not available.

The learned Government Pleader on getting instructions also submitted that the details reflected in Exhibit P14 are correct and at the time of appointment of the Petitioner no protected Physical Education Teacher was available in the said Education District.

In that view of the matter, the Petitioner is entitled to succeed in the Writ Petition. In similar circumstances this Court in Moosakutty Vs. D.E.O., has upheld the right of the teacher for approval and the said reasoning will apply to the facts of this case also. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed.

There will be a direction to the 4th Respondent-District Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders in terms of Exhibit P1 order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the monetary benefits also will be released to the Petitioner accordingly.

The Writ Petition is allowed as above.