KRISHNANKUTTY Vs. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Manager of an aided U. P. School is the appellant. The post of a Needle Work Teacher, a specialist teacher as it is known under the K.E.R., was sanctioned for the School in 1961. One Nandini who continued as a specialist teacher in that sanctioned post retired from service on 31-3-1986. The Manager, the appellant, appointed the 5th respondent as Needle Work Teacher in that vacancy. The appointment was not approved by the authorities and therefore the Manager came to this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. The Writ petition was dismissed and hence this appeal.

(2.) The appellant contends that the appointment was to a sanctioned post of a specialist teacher which did not cease to exist when Nandini retired. The Manager did not create a new post of a Needle Work Teacher and the appointment of the 5th respondent was not to a new post. It is contended that the approval was declined on a wrong understanding of the relevant provisions, in Chapter XXIII of the K.E.R. In order to appreciate the contentions of the appellant, it is necessary to extract R.2 and R.6B(1) in Chap.23 of the K.E.R, which read thus:

(3.) R.2(1) provides the principles for the fixation of the number of specialist teachers with reference to the strength of pupils and subject to the availability of funds. The rule does not compel the appointment of specialist teachers in all cases. R.2(3) prohibits the creation of the post of specialist teacher but protects continuance of "posts already sanctioned against which specialist teachers are appointed and approved''. Then follows R.66. R.6B beginning with the usual non obstante clause "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other rule in this Chapter". R.6B(1) states that no post of specialist teacher shall be created in any Upper Primary Schools or Upper Primary sections of High Schools for a period of 6 years from the school year 1969-70. But, under the proviso teachers who were qualified and who were holding sanctioned posts before 1969-70 were allowed to continue as such. The short question, therefore, is whether the proviso under R.6B gives protection to the posts sanctioned before 1969-70 or to teachers who were appointed to those posts.