SIJU JACOB Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who had been working as High School Teacher (Natural Science) under the 5 th respondent, is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order by which Government reversed the order of the DEO approving his reversion as UPST and directed his deployment, as he was found eligible for protection while permitting retention of the 6th respondent in the School as UPST. Petitioner is also challenging Ext.P6 Circular dated 19.11.2018, which was relied on by Government and seeks a declaration that he is entitled to continue as UPST till a vacancy of HST arises in the School.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as UPSA in the 5th respondent's School on 09.06.2003. He was promoted as HSA (Natural Science) as per Ext.P1 order on 02.07.2012. In Ext.P3 staff fixation proceedings dated 07.07.2017 for the year 2017-18 in the 5th respondent School there was reduction of 5 divisions in the High School section resulting in reduction of 7 posts of HSAs. Petitioner was shown as Sl.No.1 among the 7 HSAs being retrenched without eligibility for protection. Simultaneously it was directed that the newly sanctioned additional posts of UPSAs shall be filled up by protected teachers following the ratio of 1:1. Thereupon stating that the petitioner and one Neethu Joy, an HST (Maths) were retrenched for want of eligibility for protection, the Manager, issued Ext.P4 order dated 14.07.2017 reverting them as UPSTs. Consequent to this one Mintu Mathew who is the juniormost UPST was shifted to the 9th post of UPSA and the 6th respondent who was working as UPST was shifted to one of the additional division vacancies sanctioned in 2017-18. The DEO thereafter issued Ext P5 order on 26.10.2017, approving the reversion of petitioner and Smt.Neethu Joy stating that they are eligible for protection in the post of UPST. At the same time the shifting of the 6 th respondent and Smt.Mintu who are the juniormost UPSTs was not approved stating that Manager did not follow 1:1 ratio in filling up additional division vacancies in accordance with the Government Order dated 29.01.2016. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of the DEO, Smt.Soumya N. George, the 6 th respondent and Smt.Minnu Mathew approached the Government with separate revision petitions. After hearing the revision petitioners and the Manager, Government found that the petitioner and Smt.Neethu K Joy who were working HST on promotion from the post of UPST were eligible for protection in accordance with Ext P6 circular which clarified the Government Order dated 29.01.2016 and that under the 2nd proviso to Rule 43 of KER, they could have been reverted only if they were not eligible for protection. Government therefore directed to take urgent steps for their deployment after including them in the teachers' bank. Government also ordered that the lien of petitioner and Smt.Neethu Joy could be shifted to the additional division vacancies of UPSAs from 15.07.2017 till the deployment proceedings are over, since there existed a confusion regarding their eligibility for protection at that time. In the case of M/s.Soumya George and Mintu Mathew it was found that they were not liable to be retrenched as they were continuing as UPSTs with approval from 03.06.2013 onwards and hence eligible for protection in the light of the Government order dated 29.01.2016. It was directed that they should be accommodated in their respective posts. The DEO was directed to take steps for disbursing their withheld salary.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that the Government Circular Ext.P6 is contrary to the second proviso to Rule 43. It is also his case that when Government ordered his deployment by Ext.P7 order he was not heard.