Information Regarding Availability Of Protected Teachers Should Be Made Available To Managers Of Newly Opened Schools: Kerala HC

The High Court was considering a petition whereby the petitioner sought the issuance of a direction commanding the District Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the petitioner as HSA (Hindi) from June 2, 2008, onwards and disburse the attendant benefits.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice K. Babu emphasized, “...the appointment of a teacher in a school only recognises the obligation of the Manager to conduct the school in terms of the Statute, requirements of the students, and staff fixation.”

Advocate V.A.Muhammed represented the Petitioner while Advocate E.G.Gorden represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner was appointed as High School Assistant (HSA) (Hindi) in the Mary Matha High School, Panthalampadam, an aided school under the administrative jurisdiction of respondent No.4. Approval to the appointment of the petitioner was rejected by the District Educational Officer (DEO) (respondent No.4) stating that the vacancy had to be filled up by protected hand. The Manager of the school (respondent No.5) filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad (respondent No.3).

The appeal was rejected, upholding the order of the DEO. The Manager filed a second appeal before the Director General of Education (respondent No.2), which was also rejected. The Manager challenged the above orders, filing a Revision Petition before the Government. When there occurred a delay in the consideration of the revision petition, the petitioner and the Manager approached the High Court and the Government was directed to consider the revision petition in a time-bound manner. Thereafter, the Government issued the order rejecting the request of the petitioner.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that in the revision petition, the petitioner had raised a specific contention that one protected teacher was working in the school from 1984-2000 and no protected HSA (Hindi) teacher was available for appointment. The official respondents had no case that a protected teacher was available for appointment.

Reference was made to Rule 6 (viii) of Chapter V of the Kerala Education Rules which puts an obligation on the Manager to appoint a protected teacher. The Bench also explained, “The Manager of an aided school in a district cannot have knowledge regarding the availability of protected hands as required in the rules. Therefore, such information should be made available to the Managers of newly opened schools, enabling them to comply with the rules.”

Noting that the primary concern is the welfare of the students, the Bench said, “...therefore, unless a qualified hand is appointed, the Manager will not be able to conduct the school in a proper manner. This does not mean that he can wriggle out of the obligation regarding the appointment of a protected hand, but the system should not be stretched to the extent of denying approval of the appointment of a qualified teacher, that too in vacancies like those herein, which arose due to retirement of qualified teachers.” Reliance was placed upon the judgment in Nadeera T.S and Another v. State of Kerala and Others (2011).

The Bench allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned orders. “The District Educational Officer (Respondent No.4) is directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 02.06.2008. The necessary orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits”, the Bench further ordered.

Cause Title: Leena V A v. The State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:7)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates V.A.Muhammed, M.Sajjad

Respondent: Government Pleader E.G.Gorden

Click here to read/download Order