LAWS(KER)-1986-10-64

S. SAROJA Vs. A.E.O., PATTAMBI

Decided On October 17, 1986
S. SAROJA Appellant
V/S
A.E.O., Pattambi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition involves the interpretation of R.6B of Chap.23 of the Kerala Education Rules. That rule, which was substituted by GO (P) No. 160/74/ G. Edn., dated 12th August 1974, provides-

(2.) The relevant facts are the following: A full-time post of Drawing Teacher was sanctioned in that Aided Upper Primary School conducted by the fifth respondent for the school year 1968-69. Late Shri T. N. Narayanan Namboodiri was working in that post till his death in 1980. During the school year 1981-82, one Shri Mohanan was appointed as Drawing Teacher in that vacancy. In the staff fixation order for 1981-82, the Assistant Educational Officer abolished that post and refused to approve the appointment of Shri Mohanan. The reason mentioned for doing that was that there was another Specialist Teacher in the school as Sewing Teacher, who was appointed luring the school year 1980-81. Though the District Educational Officer approved the refusal of approval the Director of Public Instruction in Ext. P1 order, dated 19th November 1981, for the school year 1981-82, ordered restoration of the post of Drawing Teacher with effect from 15th July 1981 to accommodate Shri Mohanan. This was done under R.6B of Chap.23 of the Kerala Education Rules. The appointment of Shri Mohanan was approved from 15th July 1981 to 14th July 1982. Shri Mohanan was appointed from 8th December 1980. The Manager filed a petition before the Government. Ext. P2 order, dated 9th July 1985 was passed by the Government holding that since the post of Drawing Teacher was in existence in the school prior to 1969-70 and as 8th December 1980, the required number of periods were available for accommodating a Drawing Teacher in the school, the post would be restored with effect from 8th December 1980 and the appointment of Shri Mohanan as Drawing Teacher would be approved with effect from that date. Shri Mohanan resigned from the school when he was selected by the Public Service Commission on 21st November 1983. In Ext. P3 order, dated 11th June 1984, petitioner was appointed against the vacancy of Drawing Teacher for the school year 1984-85. The Assistant Educational Officer approved the appointment of the petitioner for the academic year 1984-85 only for a period of three months. The second respondent, however, ordered that-

(3.) Since approval of appointment of the petitioner as Drawing Teacher was refused by the Assistant Educational Officer in terms of R.6B(2)(b) of Chap.23 of the Kerala Education Rules, the Manager filed a revision petition which was disposed of by Ext. P6 order dated 64th June 1985 by the Additional Director of Public Instruction, He found that the post of Sewing Teacher should not have been sanctioned from 1980-81, but since the Sewing Teacher appointed earlier was working in the school, the question of restoration of the post of Drawing Teacher, which existed prior to 1969-70 would be considered only after abolishing the post of Sewing Teacher. The position adopted by him was apparently that only one post of Specialist Teacher but not both could be sanctioned. The Manager filed Ext. P-7 revision petition before the Government. His argument before the Government was that the ban contained in R.6B(2)(b) as amended by GO (P) No. 46/82/G.Edn., dated 12th April 1982 could not operate in the case of revival or restoration of the post of Drawing Teacher, which was saved by the proviso to R.6B(1) and that it did operate only against creation of post. It was his submission that the drawing teacher's post being one which was already in existence and not one to be created during the school year 1984-85, the District Educational Officer and the Additional Director of Public Instruction were wrong in refusing approval of the appointment of the petitioner. In Ext. P8, dated 25th February 1986, Government dismissed Ext. P7 application for the reason that two Specialist Teachers could not be accommodated in an Upper Primary School in view of the ban contained in R.6B(2)(b) of Chap.23. As already stated, petitioner challenges Exts. P4, P6 and P8 orders.