K.V. SREEJITH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are Higher Secondary School Teachers who were appointed pursuant to Exhibit P1 order issued by the Government sanctioning Higher Secondary Courses in August 2010. The respective schools in which the petitioners were appointed were all sanctioned the Higher Secondary Courses in August 2010.

(2.) IN Exhibit P1 Government Order, there was a stipulation that in those Schools where the Higher Secondary Courses had been newly sanctioned, and the first year of the said courses had already commenced, the initial appointments had to be only of Guest Lecturers. Accordingly, the petitioners were also initially appointed as Guest Lecturers and their salaries fixed accordingly.

(3.) WITH the passage of time, the second year of the Higher Secondary Courses also came to be conducted in the Schools in question. Representations were therefore preferred by the petitioners, among others, before the Director of Higher Secondary Education for the purposes of bringing to his notice the fact that they were now persons who qualified to be Higher Secondary School Teachers (HSSTs) and accordingly, there was a requirement for upgradation of the posts of HSST (Junior) to that of HSST in the said Schools. It would appear that the Director of Higher Secondary Education recommended the upgradation of posts in the various Schools where the Higher Secondary Courses had been sanctioned in the year 2010. By Exhibit P3 Government Order, the Government examined the matter and accorded sanction, inter alia for upgradation of 1,061 posts of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) as Higher Secondary School Teachers in the various Schools. In Exhibit P3 Government Order, however, the Government indicated that the upgradation of posts would have only prospective effect from the date of the Government Order namely 23.02.2013. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said stipulation in Exhibit P3 Government Order which mandates that the upgradation of the posts as HSST would take effect only prospectively from 23.02.2013. It is their case that, on upgradation of the posts, the same should have been with retrospective effect coinciding with the date on which they had qualified to be appointed as HSST in terms of Rule 1 (d) of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules (For short 'KER'). The writ petition is thus preferred by the petitioners seeking a declaration to the effect that they are entitled to an upgradation, of the posts of HSST (Junior) to which they were appointed, as HSST with effect from the commencement of the academic year 2011 -12. There is also a prayer for quashing Exhibit P3 order to the extent it provides that the sanction for upgradation of the posts of HSST (Junior) as HSSTs will be only prospective from the date of Exhibit P3 Government Order.