GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has come before the Division Bench on a reference made by Justice Thomas on the ground that important questions of law have arisen for consideration in this case which merit being decided by the Division Bench. The relevant facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of this case may be stated as follows:

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk by Ext. P1 dated 7-7-1976 by the 3rd respondent Manager of B. H. School, Kalady, a school which receives aid from the Government under the Kerala Education Act and Kerala Education Rules. The appointment was for the period from 7-7-1976 to 2-11-1976, which was duly approved by the District Educational Officer. Thereafter another vacancy to the post of Clerk arose in the year 1981 in which the petitioner was appointed as per Ext. P2 dated 21-10-1981 for the period from 21-10-1981 to 2-1-1982. That appointment was also approved by the District Educational Officer. Subsequently in the same school there occurred a vacancy of Peon in June, 1984. The 3rd respondent appointed the petitioner as a peon in that vacancy by Ext. P3 dated 25-6-1984. The District Educational Officer refused to approve the said appointment by his order Ext. P4 dated 14-8-1984. The reason assigned for not approving the appointment of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent who had become a full-time menial in the school with effect from 1-4-1981 was entitled to be considered for promotion to the cadre of Peons. Instead of recognising the rights of the 4th respondent for promotion, the action of the Manager in appointing the petitioner as Peon was held to be not in accordance with law. The said order was taken up in appeal before the Deputy Director of Public Instruction and the said authority dismissed the appeal by Ext. P5 dated 9-11-1984. It is in this background that the petitioner approached this court challenging Exts. P4 and P5 and seeking a direction to the authorities to approve the appointment of the petitioner as peon.

(3.) The petitioner's contention is that he is entitled to the protection of R.5IA in Chap.24A of the Kerala Education Rules. Though the said provision deals with teachers, it was pointed out that the said provisions applies mutatis mutandis to non teaching staff as per R.7 of Chap.24B of the Kerala Education Rules. It is not disputed that the benefit of R.51A is available to the petitioner.