UNNIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner in the original petition is the Manager of an Aided School. THE second petitioner has been described as the Head Teacher of the above aided School. A vacancy of Headmaster arose in the school with effect from 1. 6. 1991. THE Manager appointed the second petitioner as the Headmistress of the School by Ext. P2 proceedings. By Ext. P3 the fourth respondent rejected the above appointment of the second petitioner as Headmistress. THE reason for the rejection of her appointment was that as per R. 45 of Chap. 14a KER five years teaching service is required after the acquisition of graduation and B. Ed. qualification. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, she acquired the B. Ed. qualification only in the examination conducted in April, 1986, the result of which was declared only later. THErefore, she did not have five years teaching experience after acquisition of the B. Ed. Degree. THE Manager filed an. appeal before the third respondent which was rejected by Ext. P4. In Ext. P4, the 3rd respondent found that the 5th respondent is the fully qualified hand for holding the post of Headmistress, who satisfied the requirements of R. 45b of Chap. 14a KER. Thus, the 3rd respondent directed the Manager to appoint the rightful claimant for the post of Headmaster of the school. THE further appeal of the Manager to the second respondent was also rejected by the second respondent by Ext. P5 order. Ext. P5 shows that following service details of the 2nd petitioner and 5th respondent. Table:#1 Smt. T. R. Suvarnavally has not completed 5 years service after the acquisition of B. Ed. degree at the time of occurrence of vacancy in the post of Headmaster, i. e. , 1. 6. 91. Her completion of 5 years service with effect from 22. 8. 91. As Smt. Daisy Kurivilla is fully qualified at the time of occurrence of vacancy with effect from 1. 6. 91. " THE further revision filed by the Manager was dismissed by the first respondent by Ext. P7 order dated. 14. 12. 1995. In Ext. P5, the matter was dealt with by the 1st respondent as follows: " Now, the Manager has filed a revision petition before the Government. THE question/ issue involved here is whether Smt. T. V. Suvarnavally has completed 5 years teaching service as on 1. 6. 91 when the vacancy of H/m arose consequent on the retirement of Sri. K. Unnikrishanan Nambiar as 31. 5. 1991. Sri. Nambiar was on special leave during the month of June and hence date of occurrence of vacancy was 1. 6. 1991. Government have examined the matter in detail. THE fact that the U. P. School Headmasters have to supervise the school in addition to the routine works as Class Teachers itself indicate that their duties and responsibilities are different from U. P. School Assistants. In such cases, the concessions (viz. the day following the last day of the examination) enunciated under R. 28 (bbb) of general rules cannot be made available. In the circumstances Government uphold the order of the Director of Public Instruction. THE appeal petition filed by the Manager is therefore, rejected. THE Deputy Director of Education will make immediate action to implement the order. THE stay communicated by Government vide letter read 3rd is hereby vacated".

(2.) EXT. P7 was challenged by the petitioners in O. P. No. 691 of 1996 which resulted in EXT. P8 judgment. The only question decided by this Court in EXT. P8 was that EXT. P7 was passed by Sri. Chandrasekharan Pillai, Deputy Secretary while the arguments were held by the Deputy Secretary, Sri. Pradeep Kumar. Therefore, following the principle that the person who heard the matter should decide the issue, the revision petition was remitted back to the first respondent for fresh hearing after affording an opportunity to the affected parties a right of hearing. Accordingly, EXT. P12 was passed by the first respondent upholding the stand taken by the first respondent in EXT. P7 order. The operative portion of EXT. P12 is as follows: " After having heard the affected parties Government have examined the case afresh and come to the conclusion that Smt. Daisy Kuruvila is the rightful claimant to hold the post of Headmaster. Under the circumstances in Government are pleased to uphold the orders issued in the G. O. read as 1st paper above. The revision petition is, therefore, rejected". Learned counsel Sri. P. V. Madhavan Nambiar appearing on behalf of the petitioners strongly contended that EXT. P12 is bad in law because it only reiterated the finding in EXT. P7 without considering the points raised by the petitioners after the matter was remitted back to the first respondent by this court. According to the learned counsel, the first respondent should have passed another speaking order considering all the objections raised by the petitioners. Therefore, it is argued that the cryptic order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside on the above sole ground. But I am not in a position to accept the above argument at all. In this case, the petitioners have put forward their case before respondents 4, 3 and 2, the hierarchy officers under the KER and all the above three officers considered elaborately the points raised by the petitioners both legally and factually. The above orders are evidenced by EXTs. P3, P4 and P5. the first respondent was only thereafter considering a revision petition under R. 92 of Chap. 14a KER. The first respondent was completely agreeing with the findings of the three lower authorities. By EXT. P7 order the revisional authority once rejected the contentions raised by the petitioners by an elaborate order. This Court also did not actually set aside EXT. P7 order but only remitted back the case for fresh hearing. After hearing the affected parties by EXT. P12 order the first respondent fully endorsed not only the views expressed in EXT. P7 but also in EXTs. P3, P4 and P5. Thus, when the revisional authority agreed with the findings of the three authorities below it, I do not think it is necessary to pass another elaborate speaking order.

(3.) THE learned counsel made an attempt to put forward a case that when the second petitioner wrote the examination in April, 1986 the teaching experience which she had thereafter is equal to a teaching experience after the acquisition of the degree. According to the learned counsel, merely because the result of the examinations were announced only in August, 1986 the teaching experience which she had in June, July, and August can never be termed as teaching experience before the acquisition of the degree. But it is to be remembered that the petitioner can claim that she had acquired the degree only when the results were announced in August, 1996. When the rule says it is five years experience in teaching after acquisition of B. Ed. degree, their is no warrant in interpreting the word 'acquisition' as after 'writing the examination'. THErefore, I am of the view that the petitioners' attack on the Rule under Art. 14 of the Constitution has no substance.