AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner is a Junior Hindi Teacher, who was appointed in the 4th respondent School on 1.8.2001 allegedly by virtue of her earlier appointment in a leave vacancy from 6.10.1998 to 6.12.1998. Though the petitioner was appointed on 1.8.2001, the same was not approved by the authorities under Kerala Education Rules and hence the petitioner had availed of the remedies under KER and has impugned Ext. P4 passed by the Government in the present writ petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the sanction of approval from 1.2.2006, allegedly, on the ground that no protected teacher was appointed by the 4th respondent as provided in Rule 6(viii) of Chapter V; the 4th respondent being a "new school". The approval was granted from 1.2.2006 on the basis of the G.O. of the same date by which provision was made for appointment of protected teachers in the future vacancies arising in the school. The petitioner''s contention is that though Rule 6(viii) had provided for obtaining an undertaking from the Manager of the new school established after 1979, to take at least one protected teacher to its rolls, it was the obligation of the educational authorities to inform the Manager as to any such protected teacher remaining unemployed in the educational district. The educational authorities, however, took a view that it was an obligation cast on the Manager to seek for and appoint a protected teacher in the vacancy arising in the new school and any appointments made without complying with the undertaking given under Rule 6(viii) was not liable to be approved.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would take me through Moosakutty Vs. D.E.O., to point out that this court had in similar situation declared that the appointments under Rule 6(viii) of Chapter V is to be made only if there are protected teachers available in the educational sub district or educational district. The said view has been approved by a Division Bench in Writ Appeal 183 of 2010 and connected cases, by judgment dated 21.7.2010 produced as Ext. P19.
As is evidenced from Ext. P15, the communication received under the Right to Information Act, that in the academic year 2001-02, there were no protected teachers (specifically Junior Hindi Teachers) in the educational district within which the 4th respondent school falls. It is also pertinent that a Division Bench of this Court had in W.A. No. 178/2012 held that even if there were protected teachers, it was the obligation of the State or the educational authorities to have informed the Manager in advance about the existence of such protected teachers and in the event of no such intimation being given to the Manager, the Manager could not be held down to the undertaking. The Division Bench hence dismissed the appeals filed by the Government and directed regularization of the petitioners therein from the date of their appointment though there were protected teachers in the educational sub district; the list containing the names of whom were not forwarded to the Manager. In the case of the petitioner, he stands on a better footing since by Ext. P15 it is evident that there are no protected teachers in the post of Junior Hindi Teacher within the educational district itself. It is also pointed out that by Ext. P24 the Government has allowed approval of a teacher in a similar instance. In the overall circumstances indicated above, this Court is of the opinion that this writ petition is only to be allowed and the 3rd respondent is directed that the petitioner would be granted approval from the date of his initial appointment subject to the condition that the appointment is otherwise in accordance with law, and paid the salary due within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed, however, without any order as to costs.