JANAKI AMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Manager of an aided primary school in Alleppey District.For the academic year 1968 -69 only eleven class divisions were sanctioned for the school as per the proceedings of the Assistant Educational Officer evidenced by Ext.P -1 dated 30th August 1968.The petitioner preferred an appeal before the,Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction complaining against the refusal by the Assistant Educational Officer to sanction an additional division for Standard VI.The appeal petition was rejected by the appellate authority by the proceedings evidenced by Ext.P -5 dated 20th December 1968 wherein the appellate authority also concurred in the view taken by the Assistant Educational Officer that there was no sufficient accommodation in the school to warrant the sanctioning of the additional class division requested for by the Manager.One of the prayers in this writ petition is that Exts.P -1 and P -5 should be quashed.There was one perma­nent vacancy of assistant teacher in the peti­tioner's school during the academic year 1968 -69.The petitioner had apparently assumed that an additional class division would be sanctioned for Standard VI when the staff fixation for the year was made and probably anticipating such a vacancy also to arise he Appointed two teachers in the school on 5th June 1968,the persons so appointed beings respondents Nos.4 and 5 in this writ petition.While making these appointments the petitioner appointed the 4th respondent against the permanent vacancy which already existed and the 5th respondent against the temporary post sanction for which was anticipated by her.When these appointment orders came up before the Assistant Educational Officer,Alleppey(2nd respondent)for approval the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner on 4th November 1968 that the 5th respondent had a preferential claim for appointment to the per­manent post by virtue of the earlier untrained service rendered by her in the same school.It was also pointed out that there was only one vacancy in the school since the additional class division requested for by the Manager had not been sanctioned for that academic year.This communication was followed up by a further letter of the Assistant Educational Officer eviden­ced by Ext.P -7 dated the 11th November 1968 reiterating the same position and calling upon the petitioner to send up for approval revised orders appointing the 5th respondent in the per­manent vacancy existing in the school.Ext.P -8 is the further communication to the petitioner from the 2nd respondent to the same effect.On finding that the petitioner had failed to implement the directions contained in Exts.P -7 and P -8 the 2nd respondent called upon the peti­tioner by the memo Ext.P -10 dated 17th May 1969 to explain why her name should not be reported to the higher authorities for discipli­nary action for disobedience of the departmen­tal orders.The petitioner seeks to have Exts.P -7,P -8 and P -10 also quashed.

(2.) I do not find any merit in the petitioner's contention that he was entitled as of right to have an additional class division sanctioned for the school for Standard VI during the academic year 1968 -69 and that the refusal on the part of respondents 2 and 3 to grant such sanction is illegal and violative of provisions of the Kerala Education Rules,1959.It is true that going only by the effective strength of Standard VI for the year in question the sanctioning of an additional division for that standard may be warranted but the Educational Officer is not obliged to accord sanction for such class division unless he satisfied that there is adequate accom­modation in the school for housing the extra division also.In the present case respondents 2 and 3 have declined to sanction the additional class division requested for by the petitioner on the ground of inadequacy of accommodation.The action so taken by them cannot be said to be in any manner illegal or contrary to the rules.

(3.) THE next contention that is urged is that the petitioner became the Manager of the school only in 1968 March by virtue of a partition which took place in her family in 1963 and that therefore the previous unqualified service put in by the 5th respondent cannot be regarded as one rendered under the same Educational Agency.In the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government it has been stated that there has not been any change of ownership effected in respect of the school as far as the departmental records go and there has been only a change of management and that the Educational Agency therefore,continues to be the same.The petitioner has not produced any records whatever before this court to show that there has been a change of Educational Agency in between 1963 and 1968,1963 being the year in which the 5th respondent had put in the un­qualified service.In the circumstances the stand taken by respondents 1 to 3 and 5 that rule 5 fully applies to the present case must be accepted as correct.