Dismissed

P.P.Leela v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Feb 2009WP(C)/2093/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court consolidated several pending appeals and revisions regarding school staff appointments and staff fixation orders. It directed the Director of Public Instruction to hear and dispose of the matters in accordance with Kerala Education Rules, striking off parallel revisions filed with the State Government.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with directions to the Director of Public Instruction to consolidate and dispose of pending appeals and revision petitions within four months.

P.P.Leela Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 2093 of 2009(Y)

¶6

-------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

---------------------1. P.P.LEELA, MANAGER, PARASSINIKKADAVU HIGH SCHOOL, P.O.PARASSINIKKADAVU, KANNUR DIST.

¶9

2. P.K.ROOPESH, H.S.A.(ENGLISH), PARASSINIKKADAVU HIGH SCHOOL, P.O.PARASSINIKKADAVU, KANNUR DIST.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

-------------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR.

¶16

4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR.

¶17

5. K.P.JYOTHI, CHEMMINCHERI MADATHIL, PATTUVAM, KANNUR DIST.

¶18

GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.A.J.ARGHESE FOR R1 & 2 BY ADVS. MR.V.A.MUHAMMED FOR R5 MR.K.E.HAMZA FOR R5

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶21

====================================== W.P.(C)No.2093 of 2009

¶22

====================================== Dated this the 19^th day of February 2009

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The first petitioner is the Manager of the Parassinikkadavu High School, a recognized aided school, governed by the provisions of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Kerala Education Rules. The second petitioner is a teacher appointed by the first petitioner.

¶25

The Parassinikkadavu High School is run by the Parassinikkadavu High School Society. The first petitioner was elected as the Manager of the school in the meeting of the members of the Parassinikkadavu High School Society held on 23.4.2006. Her appointment as Manager was approved by the District Educational Officer, Kannur only by Ext.P3 order dated 31.7.2008, with effect from 23.4.2006. In the meanwhile, Sri.P.P.Venugopalan, the former Manager of the school appointed the fifth respondent, who is admittedly a Rule 51A claimant as High School Assistant (Physical Science) as per Ext.P14 order dated 13.6.2008. It was shortly thereafter that the District Educational Officer, Kannur issued Ext.P3 order approving the first petitioner as the Manager of the school and Ext.P5 staff fixation order for the academic year 2008-2009. Though in Ext.P5 staff fixation order, the District Educational Officer, Kannur had sanctioned two posts of High School Assistant (English), taking

¶26

W.P.(C)No.2093/2009 2

¶27

note of the fact that there was only one incumbent holding the post of High School Assistant (English), he directed that Sri.P.P.Dinesan, High School Assistant (Mathematics) found to be in excess, shall be adjusted against the second post of High School Assistant (English). In other words, Sri.P.P.Dinesan, High School Assistant (Mathematics) was allowed to continue in the school by adjusting the excess post of High School Assistant (Mathematics) against the second post of High School Assistant (English) which was then lying vacant.

¶28

After Ext.P3 order was passed, the first petitioner filed Ext.P6 appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, Kannur challenging Ext.P5 staff fixation order to the extent it ordered retention of Sri.P.P.Dinesan, High School Assistant (Mathematics) by accommodating him against the vacant post of High School Assistant (English). In Ext.P6 appeal, the first petitioner contended that as the sanctioned post is that of High School Assistant (English), the High School Assistant (Mathematics) found in excess cannot be accommodated against the said vacancy. Shortly thereafter he issued Ext.P7 order dated 24.9.2008 appointing the second petitioner as High School Assistant (English). The first petitioner thereafter issued Ext.P9 notice dated 24.11.2008 to the fifth respondent informing her that her appointment as High

¶29

W.P.(C)No.2093/2009 3

¶30

School Assistant (Physical Science) by Sri.P.P.Venugopalan, the former Manager after 23.4.2006, is unathorised, that there is no sanctioned post to accommodate her as High School Assistant (Physical Science) and that in order to satisfy the subject requirement, appointment has to be made to the post of High School Assistant (English). She was also called upon to show cause why her services should not be terminated with effect from 13.6.2008, the date on which Ext.P14 appointment order was issued by Sri.P.P.Venugopalan, the former Manager. The fifth respondent submitted Ext.P10 reply dated 28.11.2008. The first petitioner thereafter passed Ext.P11 order dated 4.12.2008 terminating the fifth respondent's service.

¶31

Shortly thereafter, the Deputy Director of Education, Kannur rejected Ext.P6 appeal filed by the first petitioner by Ext.P8 order passed on 23.12.2008. The District Educational Officer, Kannur thereafter passed orders on 5.1.2009 approving the appointment of the fifth respondent as High School Assistant (Physical Science). By Ext.P17 order passed on 6.1.2009, the District Educational Officer, Kannur also declined to approve the second petitioner's appointment as High School Assistant (English). The first petitioner has aggrieved by Ext.P8 order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Kannur by which Ext.P5 staff

¶32

W.P.(C)No.2093/2009 4

¶33

fixation order was upheld, filed Ext.P12 revision petition before the Director of Public Instruction and Ext.P13 revision petition before the Government both on the same day, viz.17.1.2009. She has aggrieved by Ext.P17 order passed by the District Educational Officer declining to approve the second petitioner's appointment as High School Assistant (English) filed Ext.P18 appeal and Ext.P19 revision petition before the Deputy Director of Education, Kannur and the State Government respectively on 17.1.2009. The first petitioner has, aggrieved by the order passed by the District Educational officer approving the fifth respondent's appointment, filed Ext.P15 appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, Kannur and Ext.P16 revision petition before the State Government, both on 17.1.2009. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners challenge the orders passed by the educational authorities adverse to their interests and also seek other reliefs.

¶34

When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 21.1.2009, this Court issued notice before admission to the respondents, in order to ascertain whether to avoid delay and to prevent conflicting decisions being passed, the appeals and revisions pending before the various authorities can be consolidated and disposed of by one authority. When the Writ petition was heard today, the learned counsel appearing for the parties agreed that

¶35

W.P.(C)No.2093/2009 5

¶36

the revision petitions and appeals pending before the various authorities can be consolidated and heard and disposed of either by the Director of Public Instruction or the State Government.

¶37

On going through the pleadings, I notice that challenging Ext.P8 order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Kannur the first petitioner has filed Ext.P12 revision petition before the Director of Public Instruction and Ext.P13 revision petition before the Government. Likewise, challenging Ext.P17 order passed by the District Educational Officer declining to approve the second petitioner's appointment, the first petitioner has filed Ext.P18 appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, Kannur and Ext.P19 revision before the State Government. Likewise, challenging the approval given to the fifth respondent's appointment, the first petitioner has filed Ext.P15 appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, Kannur and Ext.P16 revision petition before the State Government. As per Rule 8A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, orders relating to approval of appointment are revisable by the Director of Public Instruction. The dispute arising out of the approval of the fifth respondent's appointment and the rejection of the second petitioner's appointment can therefore be resolved by the Director of Public Instruction exercising the power conferred on him under Rule 8A

¶38

W.P.(C)No.2093/2009 6

¶39

of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. As regards the challenge to Ext.P8, the first petitioner has filed Ext.P12 revision petition before the Director of Public Instruction and Ext.P13 revision petition before the State Government. Rule 12E(3) of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules empowers the Director of Public Instruction to entertain and dispose of revision petitions arising out of staff fixation orders. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Director of Public Instruction can be directed to entertain and dispose of Exts.P15 and 18 appeals along with Ext.P12 revision petition. I accordingly dispose of this Writ Petition with the following directions:

¶40

a) The Director of Public Instruction shall hear and dispose of Ext.P12 revision petition arising out of Ext.P5 staff fixation order passed by the District Educational Officer, Kannur and Ext.P8 appellate order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Kannur. This shall be done within four months from the date on which the first petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Director of Public Instruction.

¶41

b) The Deputy Director of Education, Kannur shall make over Ext.P15 appeal filed by the first respondent from the order passed by the District Educational Officer on 5.1.2009 approving the appointment of the fifth respondent as High School Assistant

¶42

W.P.(C)No.2093/2009 7

¶43

(Physical Science). This shall be done within one month from today. The Director of Public Instruction shall, on receipt of the same, entertain it as a revision petition filed under Rule 8A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules and dispose of the same within the time limit of four months stipulated above.

¶44

c) The Deputy Director of Education, Kannur shall likewise, make over Ext.P18 appeal filed by the first petitioner from Ext.P17 order passed by the District Educational Officer, Kannur declining to approve the second petitioner's appointment as High School Assistant (English). The Director of Public Instruction shall, on receipt of the same entertain it as a revision petition filed under Rule 8A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules and dispose of the same within the time limit of four months stipulated above.

¶45

d) The Director of Public Instruction shall issue notice to the petitioners, the fifth respondent and Sri.P.P.Dinesan (High School Assistant (Mathematics) and afford them a reasonable opportunity of being heard before orders are passed in the matter. The Director of Public Instruction shall also endeavour to hear all the revision petitions on the same day and pass a common order giving reasons.

¶46

e) Exts.P13, 16 and 19 revision petitions filed by the first

¶47

W.P.(C)No.2093/2009 8

¶48

petitioner before the State Government shall stand struck off and the Government need not pass orders thereon.

¶49

f) It will be open to the parties who are aggrieved by the order passed by the Director of Public Instruction to move the State Government in revision invoking Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules.

¶50

g) It is clarified that though the first petitioner has passed Ext.P11 order on 4.12.2008 terminating the services of the fifth respondent, the fifth respondent need not challenge it separately for the reason that her appointment has been approved by the District Educational Officer, Kannur. The fifth respondent's right to continue in service would depend on the orders to be passed by the Director of Public Instruction, as directed above or the orders if any, passed thereafter by the State Government or by this Court, if moved by the parties.

¶51

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

¶52

css/

P.P.Leela v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.P.Leela v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thomas Joseph Vs State of Kerala and Others

Rekha.K.J Vs State of Kerala and Others

James K.Joseph Vs Government of India

Thressiamma V.U Vs State of Kerala

A.Ajithakumary Vs the State of Kerala

Jerin Jacob P. Vs Deputy Director of Edn.