THE MANAGER, VKNM VOCATIONAL HIGHER 'SECONDARY SCHOOL versus THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS ETC.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 343 · Decided: 27-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] I S.C.R. 343 
THE MANAGER, VKNM VOCATIONAL HIGHER 
' 
A 
SECONDARY SCHOOL 
v. 
THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.518-519 of2016) 
JANUARY 27, 2016 
(FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND 
S.A. BOBDE, JJ.i 
Service lcnv: 
Kere/a Education Rules -
r. 51A. r. 7A(3j(amended) -
Preferential appointment - 5'" respondent \l'orked in the appellant :1· 
school in 3 different spells betll'een 1997 and 1998 for a total period 
of two months and 19 days - Vacancy in the post of High School 
Assistant in social science in the year 2010. consequent to the 
retirement of a teacher - Suhsequently, appointment of 6th respondent 
- Challenge to, by the 5th resprmdent relying upon a rule H'hich 
provided for preferential appointment to some categories of qualified 
teachers 11·ho had the f<Jrtune of working earlier in the school -
High Court all011'ed the 1t'rit petition - Direction to appel/ant-
Management of private aided school to issue appointment order to 
5'1' respondent as a teacher in its school - On appeal, held: A.lier 
amendment to 1: 7A(3J by Notification dated 16.0./.2005, a qualified 
teacher cannot be saicl to have been engugecl in a vacancy· 111hich 
stood terminated unless the duration of1l'hich ll'US one fi1/I academic 
vear - 7/wugh prior to the amendment 0/1: 7A(3), the 5"' respondent 
did satfafy the 1111wne11ded 1: 7A(3) by havi11g been engaged in a 
vacancy as a qual(fied teacher for a period of two months, but 
there \VllS 110 occasion lo raise a clai111 jf.>r anJ' JJref'erent_ial 
appoi11t111ent - It ca1111ot be said that the right ll'hich l\'as available 
under the unamended 1: 7Ai3J alone 11•1Jll/d remain and 110/ the /all' 
that prevailed al the time ll'hm the 5'" respo11de11/ staked her claim 
fiir prefi!re11tial appoi11/111e11/ in the year 2010 - ,4/ier 12 years when 
the 5'" respondelll sought to en/iJrce her right u/1: 51 A. a111e11dmenl 
to 1: 7A(3J expressly disentitled a qualified teacher to claim to be 
categorized under "on account of termination of a vacancy" -
Vested right did not accrue to the 5'" respondent as early as in year 
343 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
344 
SUPREME COURT RFPORTS 
[2016] I S.C.R. 
A 
/998 -
In terms o/umended I'. 7A(3J r!w I'. 51A. if one ll'ffe to he 
brouf!.hl 101ller 1/11.! categln~F <~f· qual~/ie£1 teacher re/iel'ell 011 accuu111 
qf. ler111i11afiun ql raconcies, the lllllell<led r. 7/1(3) that .... uch 
engage111e11t /as/ell Ji>r one clear acalle111ic .veo1: 1ras to he satisjie<I 
- 5
11i re.\jJ<JIU!enl llhl 1101 soli.~fi· !he sail/ requiren1e111. thus, her cluiln 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
11/1: 51.4 fi>r u pre/erellliul appointme/I/ cw11w1 he allowed 
Relief" 
granle£1 lo 5th resjJ01u/e11/ nor s11stainable anti is set ashle. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The submission that the 5'" respondent acquired 
a vested right even after the amendment was hrought into the 
rules in particular to Ruic 7 A(J) cannot be accepted. After the 
amendment to Ruic 7 A(J) which was introduced by notification 
GO(P) No.121/20051G.Edn. dated 16.04.200S, the position was 
that a <Jualified teacher cannot he said to have hecn engaged in a 
vacancy which stood terminated unless the duration of which was 
one full academic year. Rule 2A of Chapter VII of Kcnrla Education 
Rules s11ecifically defines an 'aeademk year' to deem to commence 
on the reopening day and terminate on the last day before summer 
vacation. Under Rule I of Chapter VII it is specifically stipulated 
that all schools should be closed for summer vacation every year 
on the last working day of March and reopen on the I" working 
day of June unless otherwise notified by the Director. Therefore, 
the academic year would commence on I" .June of the previous 
year and end on 31" March of the subsequent year. Therefore, if 
one were to claim any preferential right of appointment under 
Rnle SIA under the category falling under "on account of 
termination of vacancies", having regard to the stipulations 
contained in the amended Rule 7 A(J) snch qualified teacher 
should have been engaged in a vacancy which lasted or existed 
for one clear academic yea1: It is not the case of the S'" respondent 
that she satisfied the said requirement as stipulated under Rule 
7A(3) read along with Ruic SIA. [Para 17J J359-C-G] 
1.2 On making a comprehensive reference to the principles 
of interpretation in *G11rik11p11ti Veer11y11 case on the 11uestion of 
existence or otherwise of a vested right in a person, it can
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.