C T GRACY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, having passed the S. S. L. C. examination and acquired training qualification prescribed for appointment as a teacher in Hindi in the high schools, was appointed in a vacancy of high school assistant in Hindi in the Pengamuk High School under the management of the 4th respondent for the period from 20-1-1970 to 31-3-1970. That appointment is said to have been approved.

(2.) THE Pengamuk High School has besides high school classes, an upper primary section also attached to it. For the year 1970-71 the District Educational Officer, Chowghat, the 3rd respondent in the petition, sanctioned one permanent post of high school assistant in Hindi, one permanent post of junior Hindi teacher and one temporary post of junior Hindi teacher under the staff fixation order contemplated by Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules. During the year 1970-71, one Unnikrishna Panicker holding the post of a permanent junior Hindi teacher went on leave for training purposes and the petitioner was appointed in that vacancy from 3-8-1970 to 134-1971.

(3.) THE post of junior Hindi teacher is intended for taking upper primary classes and training qualification is not a necessary requisite. But that is necessary for teaching in high school classes. The petitioner was actually qualified for taking high school classes. But since during the year 1970-71 the vacancy was of a junior Hindi teacher the petitioner was appointed to that vacancy. During the year 1971-72 in the staff fixation the same pattern was followed. By that time the teacher who had gone for training returned and that meant that one of the junior teachers had to go out and the petitioner was the one who was so of steed. Now the petitioner claims in the petition that she was entitled to continue in the school as a high school assistant. This is based upon her case that if, instead of sanctioning one post of high school assistant for Hindi and two posts of junior Hindi teachers, two posts of high school assistants and one post of junior Hindi teacher were sanctioned, she would be appointed in the school as high school assistant as the other two were not qualified to hold the post of high school assistant. Even that assumption does not appear to be quite correct as one of them was qualified by passing training and at least from that date he too would be a person qualified to be a high school assistant. Whatever that be the petitioner's case is founded upon and only upon the argument that under the relevant rules the staff fixation ought to have been different from what it actually turned out to be, that in place of one high school assistant there should have been two high school assistants. If this had been done one of the existing teachers in the school whose claim is definitely better than that of the petitioner by reason of seniority would have to be ousted. But if the rule requires that two places must be that of high school assistants and if neither of the two others in service were qualified for that post, necessarily the consequence that the senior is ousted may not be relevant. Therefore, the question is whether the petitioner's contention that there should have been two posts of high school assistants sanctioned in the staff fixation order for the year 1971-72 is sustainable.