REMA K Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and the fifth respondent are Lower Primary School Assistants of St. Antony's L.P. School, Kavallur in Trichur District. The fifth respondent has continuous approved service with effect from 2-6-1997 and she is senior to the petitioner who has continuous approved service only with effect from 1-6-1999. The staff strength of St. Antony's L.P. School for the academic year 2009-2010 was fixed by Ext. P-1 Order dated 28-7-2009, issued by the Assistant Educational Officer, Cherpu. There was reduction of one division in Standard II, as a result of which, one post of L.P. School Assistant was abolished. The fifth respondent who has continuous approved service with effect from 2-6-1997 was found eligible for protection and her name was reported to the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur for deployment. The petitioner, the junior most teacher then in service, was retrenched with effect from 15-7-2009. Shortly thereafter, by Ext. P-2 order dated 22-8-2009, the Government directed that the benefit of 1:40 teacher-student ratio will be extended during the academic year 2009-2010 also as a special case in schools affected by the specific problem of division fall, for the limited purpose of accommodating the teachers rendered surplus, subject to the condition that no post will be created on this account. The Educational Officers were directed to revise the staff fixation orders accordingly wherever found necessary. The Assistant Educational Officer, Cherpu, thereupon issued Ext. P-3 proceedings dated 10-9-2009, revising Ext. P-1 staff fixation order and sanctioning two divisions in Standard III as against the one division sanctioned by Ext. P-1 order, for the purpose of retaining the petitioner in service. Aggrieved by Ext. P-3, the fifth respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, Trichur, who rejected the appeal holding that Ext. P-2 order was issued for the purpose of retaining those teachers who are not eligible for protection. The decision of the Deputy Director of Education was communicated to the fifth respondent by Ext. P-4 letter dated 29-11-2009.

(2.) The fifth respondent thereupon filed Ext. P-5 revision petition before the State Government, wherein she contended that as she is senior to the petitioner, she should not be deployed to a Government School and that retaining her in St. Antony's L.P. School, the petitioner may be deployed in Government Schools. In short, she claimed retention in the parent school relying on Ext. P-2 Government Order. She thereafter filed W.P.(C)No. 26053 of 2009 in this Court seeking expeditious disposal of the revision petition. By Ext. P-6 judgment delivered on 19-3-2010, this Court directed the Government to dispose of Ext. P-5 revision petition expeditiously and in any event within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner, the manager of the school and the fifth respondent, an opportunity of being heard. The Government accordingly heard the parties on 26-6-2010 and 17-7-2010 and passed Ext. P-7 order dated 15-9-2010. The Government directed that the fifth respondent, who is senior to the petitioner shall be retained in St. Antony's L.P. School. Consequently, the Assistant Educational Officer, Cherpu issued Ext. P-8 letter dated 12-11-2010 calling upon the Headmaster of the school to take steps to refund the salary and allowances paid to the petitioner during the period from 15-7-2009 to 14-7-2010. Hence, this writ petition challenging Ext. P-7 Government Order and Ext. P-8 letter and seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) The main contention raised by the petitioner is that Ext. P-2 Government order was issued to accommodate teachers like her who are not eligible for protection and not for the purpose of retaining teachers like the fifth respondent who are eligible for protection, in their parent schools. It is contended that the Government misdirected itself when it issued Ext. P-7 Order, directing retention of the fifth respondent in the parent school.