Allowed

P.a.Bindhu v. the Asst. Educational Officer, Irinjalak

Kerala HC19 Dec 2008WP(C)/11172/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought implementation of an order holding the petitioner eligible for appointment under Rule 51-B of KER. The court directed the school manager to offer appointment to the petitioner within 8 weeks.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd respondent directed to offer appointment to the petitioner within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.

P.a.Bindhu Vs the Asst. Educational Officer… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 11172 of 2008(E)

PETITIONER(S):

P.A. BINDHU, PALLATH HOUSE, THOTTIPAL (P.O), PARAPPUKARA (VIA), IRINJALAKKUDA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MADHUSOODANAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKKUDA.

¶14

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKKUDA.

¶15

THE MANAGER, KARSHAKA SAMAJAM UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL (KSUPS), THOTTIPPAL (P.O), THOTTIPPAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (K) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

M.K. SUNAJA, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT (UPSA), KARSHAKA SAMAJAM UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, THOTTIPAL, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶18

V.R. SREEREKHA, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT (UPSA), KARSHAKA SAMAJAM UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, THOTTIPAL, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶19

REKHA M.C., LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT (LPSA), KARSHAKA SAMAJAM UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, THOTTIPAL, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶20

ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) FOR R.3,7 SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R.3,7 SMT.NITA.N.S. FOR R5 & 6

¶21

GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 & 2

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

Ext.P1. True copy of the representation dated 20.12.1979 submitted by petitioner's father to the 3^rd respondent.

¶25

Ext.P2. True copy of the representation dated 31.12.1991 submitted by the petitioner.

¶26

Ext.P3. True copy of the relevant extract of the application dated 31.12.1991 in the prescribed form.

¶27

Ext.P4. True copy of the relevant extract of application dated 17.10.2003 in the prescribed form, submitted by petitioner to the 3^rd respondent.

¶28

Ext.P5. True copy of the representation dated 9.9.2005 by registered post acknowledgment due.

¶29

Ext.P6. True copy of the reminder dated 29.5.2006.

¶30

Ext.P7. True copy of the letter dated 12.6.2006 issued by the 3^rd respondent to the petitioner.

¶31

Ext.P8. True copy of the letter dated 31.5.2007 issued by Ist respondent.

¶32

Ext.P9. True copy of the appeal dated 6.7.2007 submitted by petitioner to the 2^nd respondent.

¶33

Ext.P10. True copy of the order dated 22.10.2007 passed by District Educational Officer, Irinjalakuda.

¶34

Ext.P11. True copy of the representation dated 20.11.2007.

¶35

// true copy //

¶36

P.A to Judge.

¶37

ANTONY DOMINIC,J.

¶38

W.P.(C).No.11172/ 2008

¶39

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2008.

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

What is essentially sought for by the Petitioner is the implementation of Ext.P10 order.

¶42

Facts of the case are that the petitioner's mother, Smt. T.K. Krishnaveni was working as LPSA in the school of which the 3^rd respondent is the Manager. Her mother expired on 4.9.1979. At that time the petitioner was a minor. On attaining majority, Petitioner submitted Ext.P2 to the 3^rd respondent, requesting that she be given employment extending the benefit of Rule 51-B of Chapter XIV-A KER. There was no reply to Ext.P2.

¶43

In the meanwhile Petitioner acquired TTC and again submitted Ext.P4 application. According to the Petitioner the Manager offered to accommodate her in the next arising vacancy. But there was no response even to Ext.P4 and therefore the petitioner filed Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 representations. There upon the Manager issued Ext.P7 rejecting her claim and AEO also rejected his claim by issuing Ext.P8.

¶44

WP(c).No.11172/08

¶45

¶46

Against Exts.P7 and P8 the Petitioner filed

¶47

Ext.P9 appeal before the 2^nd respondent who passed Ext.P10 order holding that the Petitioner is eligible to be appointed under the 3^rd respondent, in terms of Rule 51-B of Chapter xiv-A KER and held that the Manager is liable to appoint the petitioner in the available vacancies.

¶48

It is stated that although, Ext.P10 order was passed by the 2^nd respondent as early as on 22.10.2007, so far, she has not been offered employment, but on the other hand several appointments were made in the school, including that of respondents 5 to 7. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed praying for a direction to the 3^rd respondent to appoint the petitioner in the school under his management, at least from 2.6.2004 when the 5^th respondent was appointed and with all consequential benefits.

¶49

Neither the 3^rd respondent Manager nor respondents 5 to 7 have filed any counter affidavit in this case. On the other hand the official respondents have filed a counter affidavit where they reiterate the petitioner's

¶50

WP(c).No.11172/08

¶51

¶52

entitlement for appointment in terms of Rule 51-B of Chapter XIV-A KER.

¶53

Now that Ext.P10, an order recognizing the petitioner's right for appointment under Rule 51-B of Chapter XIV-A of KER has been passed by the 2^nd respondent and since the order has become final, it is the obligation of the 3^rd respondent to comply with the same and to appoint the petitioner. This has not been done and therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 3^rd respondent shall offer appointment to the petitioner in pursuance to Ext.P10 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.

¶54

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶55

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶56

vi/

¶57

WP(c).No.11172/08 4

P.a.Bindhu v. the Asst. Educational Officer, Irinjalak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.a.Bindhu v. the Asst. Educational Officer, Irinjalak

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

P.K.Joy and Another Vs Sri.Tom Jose and Others

Jose Thomas Vs Mr. Venugopal I.A.S.

State of Kerala & Others Vs P.K.Joy & Another

Sunil.P. Vs State of Kerala

Meena George Vs State of Kerala

Joby John Vs University of Kerala and Others