KRISHNAN Vs. MURALEEDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Who is a teacher having preferential claim over members of non teaching staff, referred in Note (1) under sub-r.(1) of R.1 of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules The learned Single Judge held that a member of non teaching staff qualified to hold the post of teacher and had approved service as teacher in short term vacancies and has thus acquired claim under R.51A of Chap.14A of K.E.R. would be a 'teacher' for the purpose of 'Note (1)'. The above decision is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The dispute is between two enterprising members of non teaching staff of a private Aided School. A full time menial, petitioner in the Original Petition, in the service of the school managed by the 5th respondent acquired all the necessary qualifications for being appointed as a lower grade Hindi teacher on 16.12.1991. When a regular vacancy of a lower grade Hindi teacher arose in the school w.e.f. 1.6.1991, he staked his claim for being promoted to the post. His claim was ultimately repelled by Ext. P1 order passed by the Director of Public Instructions in favour of teacher having claim under R.51A of Chap.14A. Thereafter a short term vacancy arose from 27.6.1995 to 31.8.1995. The petitioner who was fully qualified was appointed in the said vacancy. His appointment was approved by order dated 18.12.1995. Thereafter, another vacancy arose in the very same post from 15.7.1996 to 16.9.1996. By the time 6th respondent in the Original Petition who was working as a Peon in the school had also acquired necessary qualification. Since the petitioner had by that time a claim under R.51A, he was appointed in the above vacancy and his appointment was approved by the 4th respondent.

(3.) Later, a regular vacancy arose in the school in the post of lower grade Hindi teacher on 2.6.1997. When the petitioner was appointed in the above post, 6th respondent filed an appeal contending that he is a claimant under R.43 of Chap.14A and therefore he has to be preferred to the petitioner. The 4th respondent thereupon appointed petitioner under Ext. P2 order. Against Ext. P2 order the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent. Since Ext. P2 was being implemented by the Manager, he filed O. P. No. 22770/97 before this Court. This Court disposed of the Original Petition on 19.12.1998 directing the 3rd respondent to consider petitioner's appeal and the petitioner's reversion was also stayed until orders are passed in the appeal. Even though from Ext. P3 judgment 6th respondent filed W. A. 108/98, it was subsequently dismissed as by that time the 3rd respondent had already passed Ext. P4 order on the appeal filed by the petitioner accepting his claim. The revision filed by the 6th respondent before the D.P.I. was dismissed. The matter was then taken up before the Government in a revision petition by the 6th respondent. Government dismissed the revision petition under Ext. P7 order. The 6th respondent had, in the meanwhile, filed an Original Petition before this Court which was disposed of under Ext. P8 with a direction to the Government to pass orders on the revision petition. Even though petition before Ext. P8 judgment was brought to the notice of the Government, the revision was again taken up for hearing and by Ext. P9 order allowed the revision petition filed by the 76th respondent setting aside the order passed by the D.P.I. Ext. P9 was challenged by the petitioner in the Original Petition.