AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.T. Sankaran, J.—The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Vocational Higher Secondary Education Department and thereafter, he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk. As per Ext.P2 order dated 16.3.1998, the petitioner was appointed as Non-Vocational Teacher in Biology under Rule 9(a)(i) of the General Rules. The petitioner was working as Non-Vocational Teacher in Biology in Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Kothala, Kottayam District. While so, Ext.P3 order dated 20.7.2010 was passed by the Director, Vocational Higher Secondary Education, transferring and posting the petitioner at Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Maniyarankudy, Idukki. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 order was issued to facilitate appointment of the fourth respondent, on the influence exerted by the fourth respondent. By Ext.P4 order dated 20.7.2010, the Principal of Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Kothala, Kottayam was directed to relieve the petitioner. Accordingly, Ext.P5 order dated 21.7.2010 was issued by the Principal relieving the petitioner of his duty on the afternoon of 21.7.2010 to join in Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Maniyarankudy, Idukki. The petitioner challenges Exts.P3, P4 and P5 orders in this Writ Petition. There is also a prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to continue as Non-Vocational Teacher in Biology in Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Kothala and to appoint the fourth respondent in the vacancy at Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Maniyarankudy, Idukki.
A statement is filed by the Assistant Director, VHSE, Regional Office, Ernakulam, for and on behalf of the second respondent, wherein it is stated as follows:
It is submitted that Vocational Higher Secondary Department was formed in the year 1983-84 pending finalisation of the Special Rules fixing qualification, method of appointment, Government issued orders for the appointment of qualified ministerial staff in VHSC as Vocational Teachers, non-vocational teachers and vocational instructors under Rule 9(a)(1) of the General Rules purely on temporary basis subject to finalisation of Special Rules and on the condition that as such appointment shall be limited to 10% of the cadre strength of each category and such appointment will not confer any preferential claim in the service to that post later. The petitioner was originally appointed as L.D. Clerk under Rule 9(a)(1) of KER as a stop gap arrangement.
Special Rules in respect of Vocational Higher Secondary Education State and State Subordinate Service was issued and came into force with effect from 12.3.2004. As per Rule 3 in the Special Rules, there is a provision for "by transfer" appointment to the categories of Vocational Teachers, Non Vocational Teacher and Vocational Instructor from among qualified ministerial staff. The department provided that they qualify eligibility test by the PSC. Hence, the qualified ministerial staff in the department can seek regular appointment on "By Transfer" method after qualifying the test conducted by the PSC. The PSC had already invited application and advised candidates to various post for regular appointment. The said process of advice was nearing completion. The petitioner was provisionally employed under Rule 9(a)(1). He was transferred to accommodate the 4th respondent a PSC hand. Most of the provisional teachers were continuing in service do not have the sufficient qualification prescribed in the Special Rules. Those who have qualifications would get an opportunity to appear for the examination conducted by the PSC. Hence, as per the existing law, there is no provision to allow the petitioner to continue in service. The petitioner herein was transferred to Maniyarankudy without reverting him. In the circumstances, the transfer is in order. In the above circumstance, the writ petition deserves no merit and liable to be dismissed.
In Ext.P2 order of appointment, it is clearly stated thus:
As per Government Order read as 1st Paper above, Government have accorded sanction to appoint qualified ministerial staff working in this Department as Lecturers as per Rule 9(a)(i) of the General Rules in KS and SSR pending finalisation of Special Rules subject to the condition that such appointments will be limited to the 10% of the Cadre strength of Lecturer, Non-Vocational (Part-time). Accordingly six numbers of ministerial staff of this Department were provisionally appointed by transfer as Part-time Non-Vocational Lecturer in General Foundation Course as per this office proceedings read as 2nd paper above.
Now as per Government Order read as per 3rd paper above, Government have accorded sanction for the appointment of qualified ministerial hands of the VHSE Department as Vocational Lecturers and Non-Vocational Lecturers (Full time) under Rule 9(a)(i) of the General Rules pending finalisation of the Special Rules subject to the condition that such appointments shall be limited to 10% of the cadre strength of each category and that such appointments will not confer to them any preferential claim in the service later.
There is no dispute that the fourth respondent is a PSC hand. There is also no dispute that the fourth respondent was appointed by transfer. In the light of the facts disclosed in the statement filed by the Assistant Director, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Going by the Special Rules, to entitle a person to get ''by transfer'' appointment, certain qualifications are prescribed. The contention of the petitioner is that in view of Ext.P2 order of appointment he is entitled to continue and that the fourth respondent cannot be appointed by transfer to the School in which the petitioner is working, by transferring the petitioner to another school. This contention is unsustainable in the light of the facts mentioned above.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.