Partly allowed

V.Moidutty,the Corporate Manager of Scho v. State of Kerala & Others

Kerala HC6 Feb 2012WA/725/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal filed by School Management challenging a Government Order on teacher appointments. Court permitted withdrawal of the appeal; original writ petition dismissed on terms that future appointments must comply with the Government Order.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal allowed; writ petition subject to terms laid down, permitted to be dismissed.

V.Moidutty,the Corporate Manager of Scho Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/17TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

WA.No. 725 of 2011 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.17226/2010 DATED 16-03-2011

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER::

¶8

V.MOIDUTTY, AGED 73 YEARS, THE CORPORATE MANAGER OF SCHOOLS MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CALICUT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):/ RESPONDENTS

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶12

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶13

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, OFFICE OF THE DPI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶14

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001.

¶15

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

¶16

THRISSUR, PIN-680 001.

¶17

5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

¶18

MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶19

6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, IDUKKI-685 584.

¶20

W.A.NO.725/2011

¶21

7. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, PIN - 676 102.

¶22

8. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶23

9. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKKUDA-680 711.

¶24

BY MR.LIJU V.STEPHEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2012 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶27

W.A.No.725 of 2011

¶28

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2012.

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶31

The Writ Appeal is filed by a School Management challenging G.O.(P) No.10/2010 dated 12/01/2010, which required the managements to give an undertaking to fill up future vacancies of teachers and non-teaching staff with protected hands equal to the number of persons appointed from 2006-07 onwards until 2010. During pendency of WP(C), the learned Single Judge passed orders directing consideration of approval of appointment of teachers on the Manager executing agreement to comply with the Government order above referred. The management has complied with the same and accordingly appointments of teachers from 2006-07 onwards are approved. Though after executing agreement in terms of the Government Order the appellant/petitioner could have withdrawn the WP(C), they pursued the contest in WP(C) leading to the impugned judgment, wherein the learned Single

¶32

W.A.No.725/2011

¶33

¶34

Judge upheld the G.O. It is against this judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed by the Management. When the Writ Appeal came up for hearing the appellant's counsel submitted that the appellant does not want to challenge the G.O. above stated. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is permitted to be withdrawn. Consequently, the WP(C) will stand dismissed.

¶35

So long as the above G.O. stands all appointments from 2010 onwards should be only in terms of the undertaking given, that is by appointing the protected teachers and staff equal to the teachers and staff appointed by the management from 2006 to 2010. However, if protected teachers are no longer available on account of their absorption due to increase in the positions available to teachers under the changed student-teacher ratio, then obviously the undertaking is of no consequence because the undertaking has to be enforced only when protected teachers are available.

¶36

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶37

(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶38

V.Moidutty,the Corporate Manager of Scho v. State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Moidutty,the Corporate Manager of Scho v. State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.R.Bhaskaran Vs the Secretary to Govt.

M/S. Sila Foundations Vs the State of Kerala

A,Nizam Vs the Returning Officer

State of Kerala Vs Sri.Vivet Antony

V.Ashraf Vs the Assistant Commissioner Kvat

M/S. Majeed Associates Vs Commercial Tax Officer