KOCHUSARA Vs. GRACY C T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fifth respondent in the writ petition is the appellant, the petitioner being the first respondent. The first respondent was a trained teacher in Hindi, and was appointed in a short vacancy for about three months in 1970 in a private High School. The High School had an Upper Primary section also attached to it. For the year 1970-71, the District Educational Officer 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 in the staff fixation order. Daring 1970-71, the person holding the permanent post of Junior Hindi Teacher by name Unnikrishna Panicker went out for training, so that that place became vacant. The first respondent, who was a trained band, was appointed to that place, eventhough training qualification was not necessary for the post of Junior Hindi Teacher.

(2.) Unnikrishna Panicker returned after training, when the first respondent had to give place to him, since she was appointed only in the place left by him. In the staff fixation order for 1971-72, the District Educational Officer sanctioned two places of High School Assistant and one place of Junior Hindi Teacher. The matter was taken up in revision suo motu by the Regional Deputy Director, who modified the order of the District Educational Officer and allowed one place of High School Assistant and two places of Junior Hindi Teachers. This meant that the first respondent bad to leave the school, because the appellant, who was senior to the first respondent, was eligible for the post of Junior Hindi Teacher. And against this order, the first respondent filed the writ petition which has given rise to the appeal. A learned Judge allowed the writ petition mainly on the question as to when R.6F in Chap.23 of the Kerala Education Rules came into force. According to the learned Judge, the rule came into force only when the rule was published in the Official Gazette and not when the rule was made. And for coming to this conclusion, the learned Judge relied on the decision of Chinnappa Reddy J. of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in R. Narayana Reddy v. The State of A. P. (1969) I Andhra W.R. 77.

(3.) R.6 in Chap.23 of the Kerala Education Rules was deleted by notification dated 13th September 1971 published in the Gazette on 12th October 1971; and R.6C to 6M of the same Chapter were made on 3rd July 1971 but published in the Official Gazette only on 3rd August 1971. According to R.12 in Chap.23, staff fixation orders have to be passed by 15th July every year. And therefore, we have to consider which of the rules, viz., R.6 or R.6F, was in force on that date. It is pointed out at this stage by both sides that there is practically no difference between R.6 and R.6F but for the proviso to the latter, which runs