Sreekanth .R.Menon vs District Educational Officer

Mohammed Nias C.P., J.

The petitioner was appointed as HSA (English) in Valancherry Higher Secondary School, Valancherry, on 6.6.2005, as per Ext.P1 appointment order and the same was also approved. This appointment was made in the vacancy of one K.K. Mohammed Ali. After that, the petitioner was shifted to the leave vacancy of an HSA (English), Smt. A.V. Bindu, who had availed LWA from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2010. The shifting of vacancy was also approved, and later, when a fresh vacancy arose during the academic year 2006-2007, the manager shifted the petitioner to said vacancy on 17.7.2006, and the same was approved as Ext.P3 order. The petitioner was then shifted to the resignation vacancy of one Muhammed Basheer from 15.7.2007; the same was also approved as per Ext.P4. The petitioner submits that there were vacancies to accommodate the petitioner from the year 2005-2006 onwards. There was a proposal to cancel the approval of the appointment of the petitioner to accommodate core subject teachers. The approval of the petitioner was declined. The petitioner had challenged the orders and filed WP(C)No.4398/2011, and by judgment dated 12.6.2017, this Court directed that since the manager claimed that there were vacancies available to accommodate all the rival claimants, the District Educational Officer was directed to examine the claim of each of the claimants in accommodating them in the vacancies after adverting to the inter se seniority and also the staff fixation order. There was a further direction to consider their claim for appointment within two months.

The petitioner in WP(C)No.8494/2018 had earlier filed WP(C)No.4398/2011, and by a common judgment, the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P14 as stated above. Purportedly in compliance with the said judgment, Ext.P15 order was passed on 15.12.2017 holding that though a 1:40 ratio has to be applied to certain teachers who had to be accommodated, similar treatment was not given to the petitioners and the request of the petitioners in both these cases for approval from the date of their appointment was declined. The petitioner prays for quashing Ext.P15 order and also not to interfere with the approval of the petitioner granted as per Ext.P1 as well as the shifting of vacancy under transfer effected as per in Exts.P2, P3 and P4. In short, the petitioner seeks for a declaration that he is entitled to the approval of appointment as made in Ext.P1 dated 6.6.2005.

WP(C)No.8494/2018 is also filed by a teacher appointed as HSA (English) under the fifth respondent on 13.6.2005 in a leave vacancy that arose consequent to the LWA taken by Smt.A.V.Bindu with effect from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2010. Since the disposal of WP(C)No.3193/2018 will also substantially cover the issue raised in WP(C)No.8498/2018, both of them are considered together.

It is seen that though this Court directed that the DEO to take a decision according to the observations in Ext.P14 judgment, Ext.P15 order is passed without taking into account the directions in P14 judgment. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he was liable to be continued in the post as per the subject ratio and ought to have been retained as HSA (English) as there was enough sanctioned strength in the year 2005-2006. It is stated that even at present, there are more than four sanctioned posts for HSA (English)

It is obvious that Ext.P15 did not consider the subject requirement at all and the benefit of the 1:40 ratio to be maintained with respect to the teacher appointed in place of the petitioner. Though the benefit of the ratio of 1:40 has been given to the other teachers, the same was not extended to the petitioner.

Under such circumstances, Ext.P15 cannot be sustained, the DEO, the first respondent, did not consider the fact that the surplus teacher in other subjects ought to have been accommodated on a 1:40 ratio. None of the material aspects directed to be considered in Ext.P14 judgment has been considered while passing Ext.P15.The petitioners are also deprived of the monetary benefits they are entitled to on account of the impugned orders passed in the writ petitions. The teachers dealing with the other subjects were accommodated in the place of HSA (English), violating the subject ratio, and the HSA (English) are liable to be accommodated from 2005-2006 onwards as they are entitled to be protected. The action of the respondents in refusing continuance to the HSA (English) by accommodated teachers on other subjects is clearly wrong.

For the aforementioned reasons, Ext.P15 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Ext.P15 is quashed. A fresh decision, dehors all the earlier orders, has to be taken on the entitlement of the petitioners for approval from the date of their appointment shall be taken in the light of the observations made above and on the observations in Ext.P14 judgment by the first respondent DEO, Tirur, within six weeks, after hearing the petitioners and other affected parties.

The decision in this case will also govern the case of the petitioner in WP(C)No.8494/2018. Accordingly, the said writ petition is also disposed of, directing the claim of the petitioner in the said writ petition along with the claim of the petitioner in WP(C)No.3193/2018.No further orders are required in WP(C)No.8494/2018. The attendant benefits to which the petitioners are entitled will be paid in three months from the date of decision as aforesaid.

The writ petitions are allowed as above.