Partly allowed

Sudheesh.R.S v. Assistant Educational Officer

Kerala HC18 Aug 2009WP(C)/12024/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of two connected writ petitions concerning Union School Assistant appointments. One petitioner sought approval for his appointment; two newly appointed teachers challenged the suspension of their salary. The court directed the Director of Public Instruction to decide on representations within two months and set aside the interim stay on salary disbursement.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Director of Public Instruction to decide on representations within two months; interim order not to disburse salary set aside; salaries to be disbursed pending final orders.

Sudheesh.R.S Vs Assistant Educational Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 12024 of 2009(W) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

SUDHEESH R.S., KRIPA SUDHA, ORKATTERI.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHOMBALA.

¶13

DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VADAKARA.

¶14

DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

MANAGER, ORKATTERI NORTH U.P.SCHOOL, ORKATTERI.

¶16

V.P.ROJA,

¶17

SUNITHA NIVAS, NUT STREET, VADAKARA-673 164.

¶18

P.ANIL,

¶19

PANAKOOL KUNIYIL, ORKKATTERI P.O., VADAKARA.

¶20

ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA FOR R5 & 6 SRI.C.P.SIVADASAN NAIR FOR R5

¶21

SRI. A.J. VARGHESE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶24

- - - - W.P. (C) Nos.12024 & 22956 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18^th day of August, 2009

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

These writ petitions are concerned with a

¶27

common issue and therefore they are disposed of together as agreed to by the learned counsel on either side. The petitioner in W.P.C No.12024/09 was appointed as UP School Assistant by the 4^th respondent Manager, on 20.07.2006. Ext.P1 is the order of appointment. Even though the proposal was forwarded for an approval, it seems that the approval was declined as per Ext.P2.

¶28

Two subsequent vacancies arose consequent on retirement of two teachers. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application seeking appointment. The said representation was rejected by Ext.P6 by the Dy. Director of Education stating that the Manager will have to take a decision in the matter. Respondents 5 and 6 are the teachers newly appointed. Challenging the said

¶29

WPC.Nos.12024 & 22956 OF 2009

¶30

: 2 :

¶31

appointments, the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 before the DEO and P6 for the Director of Public Instruction.

¶32

The main prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the first respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner with retrospective effect and for a direction to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to dispose of Exts.P5 and P6 representation after hearing the petitioners.

¶33

This court on 8.4.2009 passed an interim order directing the AEO not to approve the appointments of respondents 5 and 6 on a regular basis until further orders. It was made clear that it will be open to AEO, if appointments of respondents 5 & 6 are otherwise in order to provisionally approve their appointments, subject to the outcome of this writ petition. Respondents 5 and 6 have filed detailed counter affidavit. As per Exts.R5(b)and R5(d) Order dated 3.1.2009 and 23.3.2009, appointments have been approved. Therefore the approval has been granted prior to the interim order passed by this court. They are drawing the salary pursuant to the orders of approval.

¶34

WPC.Nos.12024 & 22956 OF 2009

¶35

: 3 :

¶36

In W.P.C 22956/2009, petitioners are the

¶37

respondents 5 and 6. In the said writ petition, they are aggrieved by the direction issued by the AEO as evident from Ext.P8 not to disburse their salary. It is submitted that since the appointments have been approved the salary cannot be withheld.

¶38

The claim raised by the petitioner in W.P.C No 12024/09 has not been considered by any of the statutory authorities. There will be a direction to the Director of Public Instruction to take a decision on Ext.P6 after hearing the petitioners in W.P.C No. 12024/09 and respondents 4 to 6 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶39

Since the appointments have been approved already, the direction by AEO as per Ext.P8 in WPC No.22956/09 not to countersign the salary bills of the petitioner cannot be sustained. It was mainly pointed out in Ext.P8 that the salary cannot be disbursed in the light of pendency of petitioners in WPC No. 12024/09. Since the

¶40

WPC.Nos.12024 & 22956 OF 2009

¶41

: 4 :

¶42

said writ petition stands disposed of, the objection cannot be sustained. Therefore objection raised as per Ext.P8 is set aside. The monthly salary of the petitioners therein will be disbursed from time to time. It will be subject to the final orders to be passed by the Director of Public Instructions. No Costs.

¶43

( T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR , JUDGE)

¶44

jma

Sudheesh.R.S v. Assistant Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheesh.R.S v. Assistant Educational Officer

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

K.Prakash Vs State of Kerala & Others

Chandramani.v. Vs State of Kerala

N.S.Pramod Vs State and Ors.

The Manager, Kottayam Raja'S High School Vs State of Kerala

Sheena M. Vs State of Kerala

The Manager,St.Augustin'S H.S.Murukumpuz Vs State of Kerala