STATE OF KERALA Vs. SAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition are the appellants. The first respondent herein was the writ petitioner The point that arises for decision in this appeal is, whether the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to sanction the post of Librarian Gr.III in the second respondents school, so as to approve the appointment of the first respondent in that post, is justified or not.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are the following: Higher Secondary course was sanctioned in the second respondent's school during the academic year 2000-01, The first respondent/petitioner pointed out that the Higher Secondary Course was sanctioned as provided in Ext. P1 Government Order dated 1.10,1991, Ext.P2 Circular issued by the Director of Higher Secondary Education dated 2.2.1999 would reveal that it is mandatory to have infrastructural facilities like laboratories, libraries etc, for sanctioning Higher Secondary course. The second respondent appointed the first respondent as Librarian Gr.III in the Higher Secondary wing of the second respondent's school on 16.8.2001. Though motion for approval of the said appointment was made before the Director of Higher Secondary Education, no Order was passed on it. In the meantime, the Government framed rules governing the qualifications and methods of appointment to various posts in the Higher Secondary wing, On 12.11.2001, Chapter XXXII, a new chapter was added to the Kerala Education Rules (for short, "K.E.R."), enumerating the posts and laying down the qualifications and methods of appointment to them in the aided Higher Secondary sector. When the appointment of the writ petitioner was not approved by the Director of Higher Secondary Education, he moved the Government and as per the directions of this Court, the Government rejected his claim by Ext.Pl2 order dated 27- -2006. Challenging ExtPl2 and seeking consequential reliefs, the writ petition was filed. According to the first respondent/writ petitioner. Chapter XXXII K.E.R., creates the posts of Librarian Gr.III and Librarian Gr.IV, The second respondent's school has got a library. Therefore, there must be a post of Librarian. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Shaji v. Ramachandran,2003 2 KLT 814 and also the Full Bench decision in Aided Higher Secondary School Teachers Association v. State of Kerala,2005 1 KLT 94 (FB), in support of his submissions, He also relied on Ext.P4 decision of the learned Single Judge, directing creation of posts of Lab Assistants, in support of his submissions.

(3.) The appellants, who were respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition, resisted the prayers pointing out that though various posts are created under the K.E.R., appointment can be made if only sanction is given for the same by the Director of Higher Secondary Education, in view of the express provisions contained in Rule 3 of Chapter XXXII, K.E.R,. In the case of the second respondent's school, the Director has not sanctioned the post of Librarian and therefore, the appointment of the first respondent in that post was illegal and unauthorised, it is submitted. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides, accepted the contentions made by the first respondent relying on Shajj v. Ramachandran, (supra) and Aided Higher Secondary School Teachers Association v. State of Kerala, (supra). It was held that even if the post of Librarian is available as per Chapter XXXII, the appointment cannot be automatic. Sanction of the Director is necessary for making the appointment The learned Judge noted that since it is mandatory to have a Library in a Higher Secondary School, the same cannot be manned without a Librarian and therefore, the Director was bound to sanction the post of Librarian and accordingly directed the Director to sanction the post of Librarian Gr.III, in which the first respondent could be accommodated. Feeling aqqrieved by the above direction, the appellants have preferred this writ appeal.