Petitioner challenged rejection of re-admission of her school assistant appointment after a government ban was lifted. Court set aside final order and directed reconsideration within three months.
Ext.P6 order set aside; First Respondent directed to reconsider appointment approval within three months considering G.O. of 15.6.2004.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932
WP(C).No. 17791 of 2005(R)
PETITIONER(S):
JEEVA K.T., L.P. SCHOOL ASSISTANT POOVATHUR NEW L.P.S., P.O. CHERUVANCHERRY KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA- R1 TO 4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).NO.17791/2005
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------------W.P.(C). NO.17791 OF 2005
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010
JUDGMEMT
The petitioner was appointed L.P.School Assistant in Poovathur New L.P.School, Cheruvancherry with effect from 26.8.2002. In fact, the said appointment was effected against an anticipated vacancy. However, in the staff fixation order for the year 2002-03, no additional post of L.P.S.A as anticipated was sanctioned as is evident from Ext.P1 order. Ext.P1 would reveal that the appointment of the petitioner was declined to be approved for the reason that as per G.O.(P).No.817/01 dated 11.6.2001 no appointments could have been effected. As per the said G.O., there was a ban on the appointments. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P1, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner. As per Ext.P2 order dated 19.10.2002, the third respondent rejected the said appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner unsuccessfully attempted revisions before respondents 1 and 2. The revision petition preferred before the second respondent was rejected as per Ext.P3 and the revision petition preferred before the Government was rejected as per Ext.P4 order.
W.P.(C).NO.17791/2005 2
Subsequently, the Government have lifted the ban on appointments as per Ext.P5 G.O.(P).No.169/04/G.Edn. dated 15.6.2004. Thereupon, the petitioner has approached the Government by filing a representation to reopen the issue and to reconsider the issue of approval of her appointment. The said representation was dismissed as per Ext.P6 order dated 16.4.2005. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P6 order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that a new reason which was not actually assigned on earlier occasions, was assigned in Ext.P6 for rejecting the request of the petitioner.
the petitioner as L.P.S.A with effect from 26.8.2002 was declined to be approved for the reason that there was a ban on appointment at the relevant point of time. In fact, that was the sole reason assigned for rejecting approval of her appointment. A perusal of Ext.P6 would reveal that the reason now assigned to reject the request of the petitioner is that there was no adequate accommodation for sanctioning the additional division. True that the additional division could not be sanctioned without adequate accommodation. At the same time, it has been noted that nowhere in
W.P.(C).NO.17791/2005
3
Exts.P2 to P5 orders, such a reason was assigned for rejecting the approval of appointment of the petitioner. The reason that the revision was preferred beyond the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of appeal also cannot be assigned for rejecting the request of the petitioner in view of the facts obtained in this case. The petitioner had earlier approached the respondents challenging the impugned orders in time. However, those appeals and revisions were rejected. The petitioner has again approached the first respondent solely in the light of the lifting of the ban imposed on appointments as per Ext.P5 G.O dated 15.6.2004. In the said circumstances, Ext.P6 is set aside to enable the first respondent to reconsider the issue ie., whether the appointment made to the petitioner with effect from 26.8.2002 could be approved. The said claim of the petitioner shall be considered in the light of Ext.P5 G.O dated 15.6.2004. The decision on the aforesaid issue shall be taken by the first respondent expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
spc
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C). NO. /2010
JUDGMENT
June, 2010
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a new reason assigned for rejecting a fresh representation can sustain a rejection based on an earlier ban on appointments.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to reconsideration of her appointment after the government lifted the ban on appointments.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Jeeva K.T.
State of Kerala
C.T. Ravikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
