Disposed

Sumadevi G. v. the Director of Public Instruction

Kerala HC7 Jun 2010WP(C)/17232/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition filed by a retrenched school assistant seeking appointment under Rule 51A. It directed the District Educational Officer to expeditiously consider the pending representation (Ext.P8) within two months, subject to a hearing for all parties involved.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioners representation (Ext.P8) expeditiously within two months, after affording an opportunity of hearing to affected parties.

Sumadevi G. Vs the Director of Public Instruction — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶4

WP(C).No. 17232 of 2010(D) --------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

¶7

SUMADEVI G. ,W/O.S.VIJAYAKUMAR, KRISHNAKRIPA EAST OTHARA, THIRUVALLA (FROM NAKKARAMALAYIL PUTHENPURAYI, EAST OTHARA, THIRUVALLA (FORMERLY HSA (SS) SV HIGH SCHOOL, PULLAD

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND SRI.T.NIKLAVU

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

¶11

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA.

¶13

THE DISTRICT EDUCAITONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THIRUVALLA.

¶14

THE MANAGER SREE VIVEKANANDA HIGH SCHOOL (SV HS) PULLAD PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶15

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN FOR R1 TO 3

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶18

W.P.(C) No. 17232 of 2010 D

¶19

Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2010

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The petitioner was appointed as a High School Assistant(Social Studies) under the 4^th respondent's school. Exts.P1 to P5 would reveal that the appointments were duly approved by the competent authorities. Pursuant to the staff fixation order for the year 2005-06, she was retrenched from service with effect from 15-07-2005. According to the petitioner, subsequent to that, there occurred two vacancies in the School. Those vacancies have occurred in the post of U.P.S.A. The petitioner raised a claim for the appointment against one of the said vacancies, in fact, against the first vacancy based on the amendment made to Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules that dispensed with the identity of posts for the purpose of invoking claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the K.E.R. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 representation for that purpose and the same is still pending before the 3^rd respondent.

¶22

Considering the fact that the petitioner had raised the claim for appointment based on Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the

¶23

WPC.17232/2010

¶24

: 2 :

¶25

K.E.R. and the said matter is pending before the 3^rd respondent as is obvious from Ext.P8, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, it is disposed of with a direction to the 3^rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appointment, if any, made in the meanwhile shall be subject to the decision on Ext.P8. Needless to say that prior to the passing of orders on Ext.P8, the petitioner, the Manager of the school and also any teacher, who is likely to be adversely affected in case of passing a favourable order, shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard.

¶26

Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶27

aks

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

P.A. To Judge

Sumadevi G. v. the Director of Public Instruction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumadevi G. v. the Director of Public Instruction

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

Mathew P.Rajan Vs Dr.Jeevan and Others

Mayamol.v.K. Vs Sri.E.Ayyappan

E.T.Sreelakshmi & Others Vs State of Kerala & Others

Dr.N.C.Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Valsamma Paul Vs Cochin University of Science & Technoloy

Jayaprabha.P Vs Director, Higher Secondary