ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
The respondents in W.P.(C).No.8782 of 2011 who are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge have filed this appeal.
2. We heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The facts as disclosed in the pleadings show that, by Ext.P1 order 04/06/2007 the first respondent was appointed by the second respondent Manager as a Craft Teacher in an anticipated vacancy. Approval to the appointment was rejected by the D.E.O. as per Ext.P1(a) order dated 04/03/2008. Subsequently by Ext.P4 order, approval for the subsequent years was also rejected on the ground that for Arts group, there were only 17 periods and that as a result the requirements of Rule 6(4) of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules are not satisfied. Appeal filed by the Manager and the representation filed by the teacher were rejected by the Government as per Ext.P8 order. It is in these circumstances the Writ Petition was filed by the teacher and the Manager who are respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal. The short question that arises in this case is, whether the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge to the 3rd proviso to Rule 6(4) (C) of Chapter XXIII of KER is legal or not. The said proviso which is relied on by both sides read as under:-
"Provided also that if there is already a post of Drawing Teacher under the Art Group the second post in the Art Group, namely a post of Music Teacher or a post in the Craft Group will be sanctioned only when the periods under each group exceeds 25 periods per week."
4. According to the learned Government Pleader, a plain reading of this proviso shows that, if a post in the craft group is to be sanctioned the periods under the arts group and the craft group should exceed 25 periods per week. On this basis the learned Government Pleader argued that in the school in question there were only 17 periods in the Arts group during the year 2009-2010, and therefore the appointment was not liable to be approved. According to him, therefore the interpretation of the learned Single Judge that the requirement of 25 periods per week is in the concerned group is erroneous and illegal.
Having considered the submission made by the learned Government Pleader and in the light of the objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, we feel that the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge deserves to be upheld. According to us also, if the proviso is interpreted in a purposeful manner, the word 'each' used by the Rule making authority cannot be understood in its literal sense and it only indicates that the requirement of 25 periods per week prescribed therein, shall be in the concerned Group. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala Vs.
Satheeshkumar [2011 (2) KLT 219] has also understood the 3rd proviso by holding that “the minimum period of work required is more than 25 in a week in the Group concerned”. In the light of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge. Appeal therefore lacks merit and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj True copy P.A to Judge