Allowed

Mini John v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Apr 2008OP/6847/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a leave vacancy lower primary school assistant, claimed salary for a period where a vacancy existed but a manager was absent due to legal disputes. The court directed the Assistant Educational Officer to act as manager to consider the claim and issue an appointment if entitlement was established.

What did the court decide?

Direct the 2nd respondent to act as manager, consider claim for regular appointment from 05.06.2000, issue appointment order if entitled, and disburse salary/expeditiously within two months.

Mini John Vs the State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

OP.No. 6847 of 2003(M)

PETITIONER:

MINI JOHN, W/O. JOHN, AGED 31 YEARS, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT UNION L.P.SCHOOL, THRIKKANARVATTOM, ERNAKULAM NORTH.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

SRI.ANES P.IQBAL, MANAGER, UNION L.P.SCHOOL, THRIKKANARVATTOM, ERNAKULAM NORTH, (RESIDING AT NATIONAL RESIDENCY NEAR STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, EDAPPALLY.)

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.T.T.MUHAMMED

¶17

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON 08/04/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O.P.NO.6847/03.

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1. COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD.23.8.99 BY R2.

¶22

P2. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.26.6.02.

Sdk+

///True copy///

P.A. to Judge

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

==================

O.P.No.6847 of 2003

==================

Dated this the 8^th day of April, 2008

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner was appointed as an LPSA in Union L.P.School, Thrikkanarvattom, for the period from 1.6.1999 to 13.10.1999 in a leave vacancy. The said appointment was approved by Ext.P1 order dated 23.8.1999. Thereafter, a vacancy of LPSA arose in the school on 5.6.2000. As a Rule 51A claimant the petitioner was entitled to be appointed to that post. At that time there was no manager for the school, the original manager having died on 7.9.1999. No manager was approved thereafter. The third respondent claimed that before the death of the former manager, as per his will, the school and the property comprised of the school had been bequeathed to him. On the strength of that will, the 3^rd respondent is stated to have permitted the petitioner to work in the vacancy from 5.6.2000. Thereafter, in view of the dispute regarding the shares of respective legal heirs in the property, a proper manager could not be approved by the educational authorities. The petitioner

¶33

¶34

submits that she continued to work there till 21.3.2001, when she got an appointment in another school, which appointment has been approved also. The petitioner now seeks salary for the period from 5.6.2000 to 21.3.2001.

¶35

The learned Government Pleader submits that it is true that the educational authorities could not approve a proper manager because of the dispute among the legal heirs. He also submits that for some time a receiver appointed by the Civil Court acted as the manager and he also did not take any steps to regularise the service of the petitioner till he ceased to be the receiver. It is admitted that even now a proper manager has not been approved for the school.

¶36

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶37

It is settled law that a management dispute cannot

¶38

affect the right of the teachers of an aided school. Here the petitioner's claim could not be properly considered only because

¶39

of the approved manager did not forward the appointment order

¶40

of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this original petition with the following directions:

¶41

For the purpose of considering the petitioner's claim for

¶42

o.p.6847/03 3

¶43

regular appointment in the school for th period mentioned above, the 2^nd respondent would act as the manager of the school in the absence of an approved manager. He shall consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the regular vacancy which arose on 5.6.2000. If the petitioner was actually entitled to be appointed to that vacancy as a Rule 51A claimant and if the petitioner has worked in that vacancy, as claimed by her, a

¶44

proper appointment order from the date she joined in the vacancy till she ceased to be working there shall be issued and the same shall be approved. Consequential monetary benefits shall also be paid to the petitioner, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to such appointment. Orders in this regard shall be passed and salary disbursed, if eligible, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

sdk+

¶46

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

///True copy///

P.A. to Judge

o.p.6847/03

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

===============

O.P.No.6847 of 2003-M

¶54

===============

¶55

J U D G M E N T

¶56

8^th April, 2008

Mini John v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mini John v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varghese C.L. Vs Dr.M.Beena IAS and Others

M. Nahas Vs the District Town Planner & Another

Retired Teachers and Employees Welfare Vs State of Kerala

K.G.Purushothaman Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

Manju Manuel Vs State of Kerala

E.K.Joy Vs the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare