MANOJ Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner did have an approved appointment as is revealed by Ext.P1 as a full time Menial in an aided School managed by the 5th respondent.On the strength of that approved service the petitioner did have a claim for reappointment in any other vacancy in the concerned category in the school managed by the 5th respondent.There was a vacancy.The manager did not even send a proposal for appointment.The petitioner approached the Director of Public Instruction.The Director of Public Instruction in Ext.P2 order directed the Manager "to produce the appointment proposal to Sri.A.K.Manoj as FTM with effect from 15.7.1996 onwards to the District Educational Officer will take appropriate decision in the matter."The Manager was callous in executing the order of the department.The petitioner did have no recourse but to approach the District Educational Officer.The District Educational Officer considered he matter at length and fond in Ext.P4 that the Manager was habitually denying the opportunity of the menial employee not issuing a proper appointment order in time and did not forward the same to competent authority for approval.The action of the Manager in the regard is quite irregular and sadistic.It was also fond in Ext.P4 that "the Manager is liable to pay the salary of A.K.Manoj for the period from 15.7.1997 to 16.8.2000 FN till the date of relief,the period of duty Manoj has worked as FTM without any valid orders."This also did not solve the problem faced by the petitioner.Therefore the petitioner had approached the Director of Public Instruction who heard both the parties and orders as follows: "The Manager of the school is directed to forward necessary proposals to the District Educational Officer concerned to release the salary of the persons appointed as Pull Time Menial,Peon and Lab Attender immediately and the District Educational Officer is directed to dispose the proposal according to its merit." The Director of Public Instruction ought to have seen that earlier direction in Ext.P1 to send proposal for appointment of the petitioner had been totally neglected by the Manager himself.Therefore this direct cannot improve the situation.It is in the above circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) WHEN a school manager is not obeying the departmental directions or the Govt.Orders or is denying any statutory entitlement to any teacher or member of any non teaching staff,the department cannot close its eyes.R.7(4)of Chap.5 KER enables Deputy Director of Education concerned to take appropriate action against the Manager who is ignoring the departmental direction to defeat the right of the teachers or member of non teaching staff and to realize the loss sustained to such member of staff room the Manager.The said rule also enables recovery of amount so due from the Manager by resorting to revenue recovery proceedings. Accordingly O.P.is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to take appropriate steps against the 5th respondent to see that the 5th respondent implements the departmental directions and honour the claim of the petitioner.Necessary steps shall also be taken for paying salary due to the petitioner realizing the amount from the Manager by resorting to revenue recovery steps,informing the District Collector. O.P.is disposed of.