M.P.MURALEEDARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Junior Hindi Teacher, who was appointed in the 4th respondent School on 1.8.2001 allegedly by virtue of her earlier appointment in a leave vacancy from 6.10.1998 to 6.12.1998. Though the petitioner was appointed on 1.8.2001, the same was not approved by the authorities under Kerala Education Rules and hence the petitioner had availed of the remedies under KER and has impugned Ext.P4 passed by the Government in the present writ petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the sanction of approval from 1.2.2006, allegedly, on the ground that no protected teacher was appointed by the 4th respondent as provided in Rule 6(viii) of Chapter V; the 4th respondent being a "new school". The approval was granted from 1.2.2006 on the basis of the G.O. of the same date by which provision was made for appointment of protected teachers in the future vacancies arising in the school.

(2.) THE petitioner's contention is that though Rule 6 (viii) had provided for obtaining an undertaking from the Manager of the new school established after 1979, to take at least one protected teacher to its rolls, it was the obligation of the educational authorities to inform the Manager as to any such protected teacher remaining unemployed in the educational district. The educational authorities, however, took a view that it was an obligation cast on the Manager to seek for and appoint a protected teacher in the vacancy arising in the new school and any appointments made without complying with the undertaking given under Rule 6(viii) was not liable to be approved.

(3.) AS is evidenced from Ext.P15, the communication received under the Right to Information Act, that in the academic year 2001-02, there were no protected teachers (specifically Junior Hindi Teachers) in the educational district within which the 4th respondent school falls. It is also pertinent that a Division Bench of this Court had in W.A.No.178/2012 held that even if there were protected teachers, it was the obligation of the State or the educational authorities to have informed the Manager in advance about the existence of such protected teachers and in the event of no such intimation being given to the Manager, the Manager could not be held down to the undertaking. The Division Bench hence dismissed the appeals filed by the Government and directed regularization of the petitioners therein from the date of their appointment though there were protected teachers in the educational sub district; the list containing the names of whom were not forwarded to the Manager.