STATE OF KERALA Vs. MINIMOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the admission stage, learned counsel for the 1st respondent took notice and we therefore heard both the learned Government Pleader for the appellants and learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Since the Manager is supporting the 1st respondent, which was done in the original side also, we do not think there is any need to issue notice to the Manager. Accordingly, we proceed to consider and dispose of the case at the admission stage itself. When a vacancy arose on account of promotion of a Natural Science teacher as Headmistress, the 2nd respondent appointed the 1st respondent, who is an English teacher, following Rule 6.1 of Chapter XXIII of KER, which provides for appointment of English teachers in a phased manner without retrenching teachers in core subjects previously teaching English. When the appointment of the 1st respondent was considered for approval, the DEO declined the same for the reason that the 2nd respondent School had two retrenched teachers, one in Mathematics and the other in Social Studies, who are remaining deployed in other Schools. Since the appeal and revision filed against refusal to approve appointment failed, the 1st respondent filed WP(C) before the learned Single Judge contending that under the GO referred therein (Ext.P14), an English teacher should be appointed by the Management irrespective of whether there is protected teacher in other subjects or not. The 1st respondent also relied on another Government Order, namely Ext.P14, issued by the Government in another case approving appointment of a teacher appointed in English when that School had two protected teachers in other subjects who were eligible to teach English. The learned Single Judge allowed the WP(C) by vacating orders issued by the statutory authorities and directed approval of appointment of the 1st respondent with effect from the date of appointment i.e. 04/06/2007. It is against this judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed by the State.

(2.) The short question to be considered is whether the 1st respondent's appointment as an English teacher in the vacancy that arose on 04/06/2007 could be justified with reference to Rule 6.I of Chapter XXIII, which is extracted hereunder:-

(3.) Learned Government Pleader submitted that the above Rule has to be read along with GO(MS) No. 104/69/Edn. dated 06/03/1969, wherein the Government specifically states as follows:-