M R MAJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE working as Lower Primary School Assistant in KMM LP School, Athipotta, the petitioner was deployed on protection to another school, since the petitioner was entitled to protection as per the various Government orders in force. The petitioner was found to be surplus, as per the staff fixation order for the year 2007-2008. When he was ordered to be deployed, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.28978 of 2008 challenging deployment. The petitioner contended in W.P.(C) No.28978 of 2008 that as per G.O.(P) No.175/99/G.Edn. dated 26.7.1999 (Exhibit P1 in this Writ Petition and Exhibit P2 in WPC No.28978 of 2010), the petitioner was entitled to be retained in the same school. The petitioner relied on the second paragraph of the Government Order dated 26.7.1999. A contention was taken by the respondents in Writ Petition No.28978 of 2008 that there were subsequent Government Orders and those Government Orders would govern the field. The learned Single Judge who disposed of W.P.(C) No.28978 of 2008 directed the Assistant Educational Officer to examine the matter and pass appropriate orders. An interim order was passed in that Writ Petition permitting the petitioner to continue in the same school. The learned Single Judge also directed that the claim of the petitioner will be duly considered while finalising the staff fixation for the year 2009-2010.

(2.) AFTER the disposal of W.P.(C) No.28978 of 2008, the first respondent disposed of the matter as per Exhibit P4 order dated 26.5.2010 rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioner and directing that he shall be deployed, if found surplus in the staff fixation order 2010-2011. As per Exhibit P3 staff fixation order for the academic year 2010-2011, the petitioner was found surplus and he was ordered to be deployed as a protected teacher. Exhibit P4 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The petitioner relies on Exhibit P1 Government Order dated 26.7.1999. The interpretation of paragraph 2 thereof is made in such a manner by the petitioner that he is entitled to continue in the same school. For the sake of convenience, paragraph 2 of Exhibit P1 Government Order is extracted below :

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not clear from Exhibit P3 staff fixation order that by applying 1:40 teacher student ratio, the petitioner is surplus. If the petitioner is not surplus, certainly the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Exhibit P1 Government Order. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed.